On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:05:53AM -0500, David Farning wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Simon Schampijer <si...@schampijer.de> 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.
True, the Debian workflow generally is optimized for (gzip or bzip2 compressed) tarballs. It is possible to step aside from that and custom generate tarballs based on whatever unusual formats provided upstream, e.g. pulling it out of Git repositories or extracting from xo packages. But then we loose some of the nice infrastructure, like automatic tracking of new releases across all 30.000 upstreams.
I believe Debian is not alone in preferring tarballs from upstream authors. I believe it is quite general in the FLOSS world. Feel free to be weird and unusual also in this area, just beware that you put a slight higher burden on your downstreams every time you choose to stand out from the crowd. So consider the benefits are worth the risk of loosing consumption from some downstreams.
I have cced jonas for an official position.
Thanks for notifying me, David. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
