On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:24:45PM +0100, Sascha Silbe wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:58:34PM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:I don't think it should be an either-or decision. In fact it cannot be; there's no way Debian could ship _every_ activity. Sugar Platform is intended as a base line for _all_ activities, esp. all the random "small" ones. I guess Jonas was talking about Fructose activities, but will let him speak for himself. :)My understanding was that Jonas believes that software should be deployed by the distro and not by developers (by using mechanisms such as .xo bundles). From that POV sugar-platform is not needed.
User A installs the upcoming Debian Squeeze from a DVD onto his laptop deep in the jungle with only expensive satellite link to the outside world, so will only install "main" packages, not "contrib" ones that depends on software not released with Debian (packages in "non-free" are hosted using Debian infrastructure but not included with the final distribution releases). User A will install sucrose-0.88 but not honey-0.88.
User B installs a future Skolelinux consisting on Debian packages but unlike Debian also including a few "non-free" packages - notably Etoys. User B will install debian-edu-sugar which pulls in both sucrose-0.88 and honey-0.88, and perhaps also pulls a few popular .xo bundles if reachable at install time.
User C installs some future Ubuntu which includes Sugar packaged as in Debian except for a few tweaks: a splash screen is hacked in at startup time, and sucrose-0.88 is made to depend on honey-0.88 as the many names are considered user-unfriendly by Ubuntu Sugar developers. ;-)
User D wants to develop Sugar activities for Latin America, so installs Debian unstable and the sugar-dev package.
Does that make sense? Did I miss some obvious use case? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
