Hi Peter, thanks for your feedback.
On 09/14/2010 11:19 PM, [email protected] wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Simon Schampijer<[email protected]> > 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). > > In some cases we've used .xo files but its not ideal and its caused us > packaging issues in Fedora as in a lot of cases the .xo files include > binary blobs which is against Fedora packaging policies so we have to > jump through extra hoops and its generally a pain we'd like to avoid! > Personally I'm moving to the point where if there's not a tarball I > won't spend my time packaging it. Yes, I think the effort for uploading a bundle that can be easily generated with the tools in sugar is not asked to much to have the activity then packaged in a distribution. >> And is the email from ASLO enough for packagers to know about new >> releases? Any other notification that packagers need? > > That is generally enough but a direct link to both the .xo and tarball > makes it quicker for me to update packages as I can grab it from the > email. Yes, I think that effort can be requested when someone does a release. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
