sugar 0.83 in joyride

Tomeu Vizoso tomeu at
Thu Nov 6 04:37:21 EST 2008

Hi again,

I'm thinking that perhaps best would be to create a joyride branch
similar to faster that sugar developers could administer by ourselves.

In that way we wouldn't be blocking on each other so often and Sugar
developers could more easily adapt Sugar to the OLPC hardware.

Sounds good?

If there's any problem with this, please explain.



On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at> wrote:
> Dear Masters of Joyride,
> have built updated sugar rpms and they seem to work fine on last joyrides.
> Built locally these rpms. Anybody sees any problem if I build them in
> the OLPC-3 branch? Or should be in F9? Or F10 if we intend to switch
> soon? What if we decide to do a 8.2.1 release?
> sugar-0.83.2-2.fc9.i386.rpm
> sugar-artwork-0.83.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> sugar-base-0.83.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> sugar-datastore-0.83.0-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> sugar-presence-service-0.83.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm
> sugar-toolkit-0.83.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> Had to install these two from F9:
> NetworkManager-0.7.0-0.11.svn4175.fc9.i386.rpm
> NetworkManager-glib-0.7.0-0.11.svn4175.fc9.i386.rpm
> And these ones from F10:
> libasyncns-0.7-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> python-telepathy-0.15.3-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
> telepathy-gabble-0.7.12-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> telepathy-glib-0.7.17-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> telepathy-salut-0.3.5-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> So, how would you prefer to move forward?
> Thanks,
> Tomeu

More information about the Devel mailing list