Peter Robinson wrote: > I think from the sugar perspective there needs to be some > standard defined and recommendation made +to make supporting it easier > rather than just sitting on the fence.
I agree. I am trying to devise such a recommendation. My goal is that the recommendation also be a "path of least resistance" for Activity developers, so that it's likely to actually be used. > Deployments or people of course > are then free to ignore those recommendations and package half a > binary distribution up in their .xo if they so choose. Of course. They're also free to patch Sugar however they like. > At the moment > its not so much of an issue but moving forward I think that if > something isn't well defined now we're going to end up with a massive > support burden going forward with users coming to mailing lists > complaining because activities don't work and that sugar is bad > because nothing works. I agree. Consider, for example, an isolated school in Bangladesh, with no real internet connection, running a mixture of XO-1.5's (x86-32), second-hand consumer laptops (x86-64), Lemote machines from China (MIPS), and XO-2's (ARM). One kid gets a few gigabytes of activity bundles in the mail on a USB stick from a penpal, and wants to share them with the rest of the school. I would like to make sure that this works.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel