On 14 Sep 2010, at 15:14, Simon Schampijer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks David and Walter for the feedback, > > On 09/14/2010 04:09 PM, Walter Bender wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:05 AM, David Farning<[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Simon Schampijer<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> what is the current status for activity releases in order to include >>>> them in distributions like Soas*? Do you guys need tarballs or did you >>>> switch over to construct the rpms from the .xo? For example the latest >>>> Paint rpm uses the .xo AFAIK (build even the binaries from the >>>> non-python sources in the bundle). >>>> >>>> And is the email from ASLO enough for packagers to know about new >>>> releases? Any other notification that packagers need? >>> >>> In the .deb side of the universe, we prefer tarballs but we can work >>> directly from the git repository. > > We should not go from the git repository. Either use the .xo or a tarball. > >> Is it not still the practice to put tarballs on download.sl.o ??? >> >> -walter > > Well, the latest mails I have seen about activity releases (besides > Chat) does come from ASLO and only state the .xo. If there are tarballs > at d.sl.o they have not been announced ;D I've been uploading me since Bernie kindly un blocked my shell account, though I totally understand why others might not manage this workflow, there's already many hoops to jump though for a casual activity developer to do for a release. Are all the ASLO emails not enough? I'm getting three separate emails from the system for every release already! Regards, --Gary > Regards, > Simon > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel _______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
