Ian Bicking wrote:
Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
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").
Well, I got setuptools working on my hard drive. Where in the
repository should I put the resulting package?
I think it's pretty slick; I was able to take a couple applications
(that had already enumerated their dependencies) and package them up
as totally self-contained bundles without adding any new information.
It's not complete -- I haven't looked at what sugar-activate-factory
really does, or how the actual scripts fit into this either.
The other issue that came up is that I realized a rather modest little
application I'd written (HTConsole) turned into an 8Mb activity. It
actually is bringing in more dependencies than it needs to, but also a
lot of libraries (my own included) ship stuff that they don't need to.
E.g., the Cheetah template language has 420Kb of tests. My app has
300Kb of Javascript. Paste includes 600Kb that is mostly backported
stdlib libraries in case you are running on Python 2.3. I'm not
entirely sure how to deal with this issue.
Ivan,
can we create a new git module for this? Either sugar-bundle-builder or
bundle-builder I guess.
Marco
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
