5,705
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + +
Talk:Sugar Network/Recipe Specification (view source)
Revision as of 09:33, 8 February 2011
, 09:33, 8 February 2011→Auxiliary Section
A while back, I tried to drum up interest in adding optional fields to activity.info that would enable the developer to communicate to the packager so that the packager would not have to hunt for information needed in creating an .rpm or .deb. Didn't get much traction at the time, but it seems we have an opportunity to exploit your proposal to this end. SDZ had helped me come up with a short list of things that would be trivial for developers to itemize... will try to recreate it. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 08:13, 8 February 2011 (EST)
A while back, I tried to drum up interest in adding optional fields to activity.info that would enable the developer to communicate to the packager so that the packager would not have to hunt for information needed in creating an .rpm or .deb. Didn't get much traction at the time, but it seems we have an opportunity to exploit your proposal to this end. SDZ had helped me come up with a short list of things that would be trivial for developers to itemize... will try to recreate it. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 08:13, 8 February 2011 (EST)
:The core difference here is that new activity.info might be used as direct spec files for packaging on Bazaar, i.e., there is no need to convert some activity.info fields to .spec/.deb, just upload your activity to the server and interested in native packages people will just reuse your uploads. Though it is not intended for official GNU/Linux repos, but the fact that activiti.info has all sufficient fields for having 3rd party rpm/deb, should help official packagers. [[User:Alsroot|alsroot]] 08:33, 8 February 2011 (EST)