Build streams

[Chris Ball]

Hi,

   > Despite everybody denying this, it seems to me that the OLPC group
   > and the SugarLabs group are _NOT_ talking to each other.

Please don't litter the list with this kind of non-sequitur.  The new
build streams discussion happened during our regular, public software
meeting (you're invited, too), which was attended by Sugar Labs people
who gave positive feedback on the proposal.  You do us all a disservice
by trying to create controversy.

   > Finally, finally, Joyride 2024 managed to 'make available to users'
   > some of the newer Sugar changes (packaged in a build, as opposed to
   > only available in source).

Note that the Joyride system involves developers pushing packages to
Joyride at their own will; the Sugar team released these changes when
they decided that they wanted to.

   > But what the 'Build Streams' topic proposes is making Joyride a
   > "copy of the the olpc-3 stream" (does that mean a re-focus on
   > kernel work as opposed to UI work ?).  I'm interested in how the
   > new Sugar behaves on my XO -- it is not clear to me how much broken
   > F9 stuff I might run into in the meantime.

Rebasing onto F9 is happening for as many UI reasons as kernel ones: we
want the new xulrunner packages in F9 for a better browsing experience,
we want the NetworkManager package in F9 so that we can gain the recent
features added to NM, and, yes, we need a kernel upgrade too.  F7 is
unsupported as of approximately today, which makes it a non-starter
for future releases.

The F9 build does boot into Sugar -- we aren't going to leave everyone
with a broken build for long.  It has bugs, though.  We need help fixing
the bugs more than we need a demand for constantly stable developer
builds and an unwarranted supposition of conflict.

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb at laptop.org>