On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 10:36:42AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
It may do us good to keep an eye of what Ubuntu is doing about what
they call opportunistic developers and Quickly:
http://www.jonobacon.org/2009/10/19/ubuntu-and-the-opportunistic-programmer/
Interesting project, even if they evade
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:59:24PM -0300, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
It supports any target we would ever care for, even some arm targets:
http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service/supported_build_targets
I don't see MIPS listed. Don't we care about the Lemote Yeeloong?
CU Sascha (just trying to
Hi Aleksey,
Can activity bundles on Activity Library [1] be not fully bundled
and demand additional (except having .xo) steps (that in most
cases will demand network connection) to its launch.
Sounds like this should be a Development Team/Deployment Team
decision, unless you've
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 04:11:30PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi Aleksey,
Can activity bundles on Activity Library [1] be not fully bundled
and demand additional (except having .xo) steps (that in most
cases will demand network connection) to its launch.
Sounds like this should
Aleksey Lim wrote:
* the major issue here that ASLO is not particalr deployment oriented
portal, e.g. in OLPC case, mentioned issue is mostly means nothing
since OLPC can effectively add/remove any component they think is
useful for their users
I don't understand this claim. ASLO is
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 05:01:54PM -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
Aleksey Lim wrote:
* the major issue here that ASLO is not particalr deployment oriented
portal, e.g. in OLPC case, mentioned issue is mostly means nothing
since OLPC can effectively add/remove any component they
Aleksey Lim wrote:
what ASLO is,
in my mind it was deployment agnostic thus if we have packages for 0.84 on
bunch of distros, ASLO activities that are stated 0.84 ready should just
run.
I agree. OLPC needs this as badly as anyone.
OLPC already supports users on a mix of Fedora 9- and Fedora
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 05:47:17PM -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
Aleksey Lim wrote:
what ASLO is,
in my mind it was deployment agnostic thus if we have packages for 0.84 on
bunch of distros, ASLO activities that are stated 0.84 ready should just
run.
I agree. OLPC needs this as
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 06:09:43PM -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
Aleksey Lim wrote:
agree as well, my thought about requesting SLOBs is that there is a fork:
* only SP activities
* activities w/ non SP dependencies
and would be very useful (for everyone) if we
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:01 -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
Aleksey Lim wrote:
* the major issue here that ASLO is not particalr deployment oriented
portal, e.g. in OLPC case, mentioned issue is mostly means nothing
since OLPC can effectively add/remove any component they think is
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 22:20 -0300, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
If we want Sugar's user-base to keep growing in the future, we need to
keep our platform open and viable to users of different hardware.
Hopefully soon, also OLPC is going to switch to a non-x86 architecture.
It was clear from the
Bernie Innocenti wrote:
My only concern is that 0install seems to be itself another prototype
packaging format, with plenty of crucial features still missing. For
example, Aleksey was telling me last week that people build binaries on
their personal desktops because there's not yet a real
12 matches
Mail list logo
