drew einhorn wrote:
...
I agree that sugar-jhbuild is not suitable for beginners to
install on their computers. In addition to taking way too
long to compile (on an average box) and download
(if you are bandwidth deprived, like me), it is way to unstable
for beginners. Something that worked yesterday may not
work today, once the latest source with new bugs is
retrieved by subversion or git.
One of the possible partial solutions we identified was to fix jhbuild
to allow for date-based git checkouts (Ian has submitted a patch) and
then publish a "known to work" date, so that developers could tell
sugar-jhbuild to build for the known-good date. Once a developer has a
built version of sugar and all the dependencies they can keep up-to-date
by skipping the broken packages on the next build (normally). The
developer's image should allow this working method as well, so
developers can keep their images up-to-date the same way the core
developers are.
Regarding stability: the developer's image is currently using Gentoo's
portage system for the build-base stuff. Gentoo is pretty good about
stability on packages and provides fairly reliable upgrading, despite
having very up-to-date packages available. Because there's only 24
packages using sugar-jhbuild there should be less breakage than with the
205 packages in a build-base installation.
to access the gui over a low bandwidth link.
This is probably the biggest limitation of the developer's image
approach. It really doesn't work well over a low-bandwidth link, unless
you use a DVD with the image (and the players for Linux and Win32)
burned onto it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnionFS
I'm not enough a sysadmin to know whether the approach is a good one.
I'd rather not have to maintain a central server with hundreds of users
(I'm not a sysadmin by trade, after all), but maybe that's no biggie for
some people.
Guido has been frustrated trying to get sugar-jhbuild running on
his Ubuntu Dapper box, and kicked off a discussion about what
OS would be best if he decides to build a new box to use
for sugar development. We should pay attention to that thread.
I have not yet looked to see if he has gotten any responses.
I think Ubuntu Edgy, Feisty, and Fedora Core 6 will be in the
running. I have no idea if any of them support a unionfs.
...
IIRC we failed on Edgy using the system libraries approach as well. So
you may need to do a build-base install on that. Feisty was the
platform suggested to us at the end of that attempt for a
system-libraries approach.
UnionFS v2 is apparently available for the 2.6.20 and above kernel.
(from http://www.filesystems.org/project-unionfs.html)
Have fun,
Mike
--
________________________________________________
Mike C. Fletcher
Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
http://www.vrplumber.com
http://blog.vrplumber.com
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
