Ivan Krstić wrote:
Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
* How do we pack executable code and resources in an activity bundle?
distutils, setuptools, auto*, something else? I don't think we want to
force people to use *one* build system but there should be at least a
suggested/documented one.
Right. So, it sounds like all of these systems will need to get extended
to support our bundle format; let's pick one to begin with, and do the
rest later (and the community might contribute them). I'd trust Ian's
judgment on picking an initial build system to bootstrap.
Yeah, I don't think auto* is going to be a good base anyway and Ian's
plan about setuptools made sense to me. Now, if Ian could work with Bert
to port the etoys activity over setuptools, I think that would be a good
basic test of his plan (the etoys activity looks really simple to
"package").
* I think Dan wrote the bundles spec to support also non-python
activities. For unmanaged languages, C/C++ for example, how do we ensure
that executables will work on the target machines (for example use a
compatible toolchain)?
I feel strongly that we should not address this until after B-Test, both
because we really don't have the engineering resources to spend on
making sure this behaves properly, and because there are huge security
implications at play here, so we should wait until the security specs
are public before figuring out how exactly to tackle this problem. Is
that okay with you?
That works for me. I'm going to need some C++ in the browser activity
but I can just keep it as part of sugar rather than using a separate bundle.
Marco
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
