On 09/15/2010 10:41 AM, David Farning wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Tomeu Vizoso<to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 00:51, Jonas Smedegaard<d...@jones.dk> wrote: >>> 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, >> >> This time we weren't trying to outsmart everybody else ;) >> >> We actually do believe in tarballs and tagging, even if we don't get >> it right always. We have these instructions for modules in glucose and >> fructose and of course I recommend them as well to other modules: > > I took Simon's comment earlier in the the thread that we shouldn't use > git repos and instead us XO bundles as the weird part:(
"We should not go from the git repository. Either use the .xo or a tarball." To quote myself. Ideally there would be tarballs that only contain sources (like Peter said). Those should be used. If not I prefer the .xo, since this is clearly a released Version of the activity. To help > understand the .deb work flow: > 1. Select activities to include -- Use the Soas activities ( no need > to reinvent that wheel) + a few requested activities. > 2. Research activity -- Look up activity on ASLO to find latest > release and 'Homepage.' > 3. Find Tarball -- Poke around on > http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/ for a recent tarball -- The > external, honey, sucrose, fructose, glucose categorizes inapproachably > named. _Every_one_ wastes time trying to figure out what they mean > and what goes where:( Wow, if there is a tarball and it has not been announced as a packager I would not go looking through all the sources at sugarlabs.org if I may be lucky finding one. A release email should contain the link or a note to use the .xo imho. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel