On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 7 May 2013 09:46, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>>
>> The reasoning for that change are all ok.
>>
>> I am wondering the following: who is using 'sugar-emulator' at the moment
>> on Fedora (or possibly other distributions)?
>>
>> I think a dev
On 7 May 2013 13:15, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 01:05 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
>> I think is important Fedora (and other distros) have a option to run sugar
>> in a window in Gnome.
>> If not, is more difficult develop activities.
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>
> I think a developer is off we
On 05/07/2013 01:05 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
I think is important Fedora (and other distros) have a option to run sugar
in a window in Gnome.
If not, is more difficult develop activities.
Gonzalo
I think a developer is off well in just use sugar-build for that
purpose. At least as long as we
I think is important Fedora (and other distros) have a option to run sugar
in a window in Gnome.
If not, is more difficult develop activities.
Gonzalo
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 12:44 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>
>> On 7 May 2013 10:01, Peter Robinson
On 05/07/2013 12:44 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
On 7 May 2013 10:01, Peter Robinson wrote:
Advantages of having it together is that as the sugar release changes
the changes are made to sugar the changes to sugar-runner are in lock
step so you should never get into a situation where either shoul
On 7 May 2013 10:01, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> Advantages of having it together is that as the sugar release changes
> the changes are made to sugar the changes to sugar-runner are in lock
> step so you should never get into a situation where either shouldn't
> work together. It makes it easier f
On 7 May 2013 09:46, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> The reasoning for that change are all ok.
>
> I am wondering the following: who is using 'sugar-emulator' at the moment
> on Fedora (or possibly other distributions)?
>
> I think a developer can use 'sugar-build' fine those days for his needs.
> It i
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 6 May 2013 11:47, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>>>
>>> "Yes sugar-runner should just work in fedora as a replacement of
>>> sugar-emulator. It only needs to be packaged."
>>>
>>> Why isn't it included in the sugar package, what is the advanta
Thanks Daniel for the writeup.
On 05/06/2013 12:35 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
On 6 May 2013 11:47, Simon Schampijer wrote:
"Yes sugar-runner should just work in fedora as a replacement of
sugar-emulator. It only needs to be packaged."
Why isn't it included in the sugar package, what is the a
On 6 May 2013 11:47, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> "Yes sugar-runner should just work in fedora as a replacement of
>> sugar-emulator. It only needs to be packaged."
>>
>> Why isn't it included in the sugar package, what is the advantages of
>> it and why the hell isn't it being discussed on the deve
10 matches
Mail list logo
