-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:24:20AM -0500, Luke Faraone wrote: >On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > >> Debian POV: Someone needs to volunteer packaging >> "sugar-etoys-activity". Drop an email to >> debian-olpc-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org . >> >> Ubuntu POV: Someone needs to volunteer hacking[1] together a sugar >> activity package until a Debian package can be adopted. More info at >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SugarTeam >> >> I recommend helping as "upstream" as possible instead of only locally >> for Ubuntu. YMMV. >> > >Yes, but our "hacks" are the result of a lack of understanding of your >git-based packaging;
That is one way to put it. Another is that you have had no interest in starting out with simple stuff before complex stuff. I kept recommending you to try package an activity with no odd dependencies (i.e. written in Python), but you kept wanting to upgrade core Sugar libraries. You do not even need to use my packaging style. Just do not expect my help, then. Discuss it with other members of the OLPC Alioth list, with debian-mentors or whatever. All I say here is to avoid duplicate work: Package for Debian and pull that into derivatives, rather than packaging uniquely for each pet derived distro. >It's interesting that Ubuntu had *working* sugar packages with *more* >working activities six months ago. This is no longer the case, as we've >synced to Debian packaging (which had some show-stopper bugs that >required us to patch *each* activity you/we were shipping). Blame yourself for abandoning superior(?) packaging! My reasons for different packaging style than older work by Jani Monoses is here: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2008-April/000084.html Blame yourself for needing distro-specific workarounds: They are caused by your "running ahead" of Debian and then later wanting to adopt Debian packaging that when in slightly different direction than your earlier work. >If you'd support a sugar-whatever-activity package that didn't use >git-buildpackage or the multi-branch/tree workflow, I'd be happy to >produce one, If you by "you" are referring to Debian, then sure, Debian supports other packaging styles. If you are referring to me personally, then no, I see no reason to support any other packaging styles than I want to use myself. If you are referring to the Alioth team, then feel free to use other schemes. I am not the law. Heck, I am not even an admin of that group. I just happen to actually get some work done. Your freedom to choose packaging style should come as no surprise: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2008-December/000681.html http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2009-January/000885.html http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2009-February/000894.html >but as it stands the build and import process is undocumented. Bullshit! Complex parts, irrelevant for activity packaging, is missing. So stop whining and start packaging some simple Sugar activities. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmTDA8ACgkQn7DbMsAkQLhHXACghUfXhv3eV5X6hCmYExiWr5Z9 dg8AnjuKQyfPiL3vAHNY/DR9+DybpBP7 =V4zH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel