Difference between revisions of "Talk:Supported systems"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:::I think at very minimum ''supported'' should involve availability of binary packages. Only Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora meet that requirement. -- [[User:Marcopg|Marcopg]] | :::I think at very minimum ''supported'' should involve availability of binary packages. Only Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora meet that requirement. -- [[User:Marcopg|Marcopg]] | ||
::::I've reorganized the table to try to reflect this distinction. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 11:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | ::::I've reorganized the table to try to reflect this distinction. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 11:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Updating Sugar to the Latest Version== | ||
| + | |||
| + | What is the recommended process for updating non-OLPC systems, such as Sugar on Ubuntu? | ||
Revision as of 10:42, 16 July 2008
Updated Menu Item?
Can you update Getting Sugar to read Getting & Updating Sugar ?
Tested?
What do these tables represent? Distros on which Sugar is bundled? Distros on which Sugar *can* run, with the necessary dependencies? --Morgs 08:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The former, at least in the case of Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora. But maybe we need to add another column to the table. --Walter 11:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think at this time the table should only contain Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora. The other distributions/OS are not supported in any way. -- Marcopg
- We better try to define supported. --Walter 02:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Updating Sugar to the Latest Version
What is the recommended process for updating non-OLPC systems, such as Sugar on Ubuntu?