On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 05:50:59PM +0000, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 05:37:44PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 03:02:15PM +0100, Sascha Silbe wrote: > > >Once 0install support gets merged, Sugar Platform should be enhanced to > > >include build tools (autocrap, c(++) compiler, ...); in that case, > > >activity authors can also rely on the corresponding -dev(el) packages > > >(i.e. libraries, header files, etc.) to be installed as well. > > > > I have not followed the discussions on 0install, but it surprises me > > that this should be mandatory - I always considered 0install as > > comparable to a distribution. > > afaik there is no plans to "switch" to 0install, in my mind its an > edition[1] to existed scheme(but if we accept this feature we should > have 0install injector library in SP), so using 0install dependencies > we won't extend Sugar Platform too much > > [1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Zero_Install_integration#Summary
btw 0install could install native packages as well, the reason to use 0install(instead of another distro agnostic method to install distro packages) is that w/ 0install we can install packages that are not well packaged and activity specific binaries. [2] http://0install.net/tests/Gimp-native.xml > > I might loose interest in Sugar if 0install becomes integral part of > > core Sugar. But that's another discussion. -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel