On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 06:19:57PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:18:50PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:55 AM, J
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 06:19:57PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:18:50PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Either way, while this may be a huge philosophical dif
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:18:50PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you mean some other package than my proposed honey-NN?
>>
>> No, I have come full circle to agree with
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:18:50PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Do you mean some other package than my proposed honey-NN?
No, I have come full circle to agree with the proposed honey-NN
Ok.
Either way, while this may be a huge philoso
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:34:12PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
>>
>> The difference is that they expect to be able to install bundles via
>> install_activity_bundle. From a technical POV the issue seems similar to
>> how how Debian handles
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:34:12PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
The difference is that they expect to be able to install bundles via
install_activity_bundle. From a technical POV the issue seems similar
to how how Debian handles mozilla add ons. There are instances where
users will want the ab
The difference is that they expect to be able to install bundles via
install_activity_bundle. From a technical POV the issue seems similar
to how how Debian handles mozilla add ons. There are instances where
users will want the ability to use and install addons, without being
limited by their und
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:51:49PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
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:
My understanding was that Jonas believes that so
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>> My understanding was that Jonas believes that software should be
>>> deployed by the distro and not by
Hi,
On Sonntag, 3. Januar 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> It does not make sense to me to add non-package dependencies to
> sucrose-NN. It might make sense to maintain such in a separate
> metapackage, e.g. honey-NN.
/me suggest to build honey-NN from the sugar source package :)
regards,
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 09:04:09PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 04:26:55PM -0600, dfarning wrote:
>
>> Ok, still learning the bug reporting sys
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:
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 suga
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 09:04:09PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 04:26:55PM -0600, dfarning wrote:
Ok, still learning the bug reporting system. It seems pretty handy to:
Open a debian VM with quem (when testing
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:58:34PM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
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.
I don't think it should be an either-
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:36, Sascha Silbe
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 09:04:09PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
>
>> The problem is that because activity bundles (.xo) do not have the ability
>> to declare dependencies, activity developers must be able to depend on a
>> specific set package bei
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 09:04:09PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
The problem is that because activity bundles (.xo) do not have the
ability to declare dependencies, activity developers must be able to
depend on a specific set package being available. I don't belive that
this list of packages ha
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 04:26:55PM -0600, dfarning wrote:
Is serious the correct category for this type of bug?
Nope. More info here: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
Read it.
Also, please simply skip version numbe
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 04:26:55PM -0600, dfarning wrote:
Is serious the correct category for this type of bug?
Nope. More info here: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
Also, please simply skip version number rather than providing a bogus
one like "lastest".
But thanks for try
Package: sugar-0.88
Version: lastest
Severity: important
Is serious the correct category for this type of bug?
Sugar activitity developers now depend on the availability of
python-numpy
python-pygames
Several activities such as maze and memorize will not run without these
dependancies
-- Syst
19 matches
Mail list logo
