On 01.12.2009, at 15:13, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 02:48:18PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> On 01.12.2009, at 13:33, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:27:27AM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >>>> On 01.12.2009, at 02:43, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 02:15:46AM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >>>>>> On 29.11.2009, at 15:02, Sascha Silbe wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.86/Platform_Components >>>>>> >>>>>> Speaking of Etoys - that 0.86 page lists 4.0.2206, whereas the actual >>>>>> Etoys version in the 0.86 release was 4.0.2319 (and 4.0.2332 in 0.86.2). >>>>>> How come? Should I just change it, and if so, to which version? Also, >>>>>> there have been some bug fixes since then, the current version (good for >>>>>> 0.82 to 0.86) is 4.0.2339. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that page should have the minimal version working with Sugar. >>>>> >>>>> It is a wiki: feel free to update if the information is wrong :-) >>>> >>>> I changed it to 4.0.2332. >>> >>> Which means you consider older versions to *not* work with Sugar? >> >> No, but the page says that these are the versions that "activity authors can >> rely on" when targeting Sugar 0.86. Actually, 4.0.2339 has an important fix >> for etoys-based activities (SugarLabs #1576), but since this was not ready >> in time for 0.86, activity authors can not rely on it. > > Python 2.6 was also "ready" when 0.86 was released, but promising activity > authors as a minimum that version raise the bar for distributors. > > I strongly recommend to promote a more relaxed "lowest denominator".
Python 2.6 is not part of Sugar. Etoys 4.0.2332 is part of the Sugar 0.86.2 release, not merely a dependency. E.g., the requirements for squeak-vm, which is a dependency of etoys, are relaxed. If you actually use 3.10-4 as stated on the platforms page, then e.g. the activity title in Sugar will be wrong. But since that is largely cosmetic, it's not a firm requirement. Of course, 3.10-6 or 3.11 would be much better. - Bert - _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel