Sugar and GTK updates

Benjamin M. Schwartz bmschwar at
Tue Aug 16 13:49:36 EDT 2011

On 08/16/2011 11:49 AM, Kevin Gordon wrote:
> My concern is that feature creep, and with concurrent support dependency
> increases, it could make the footprint and hardware requirements so large
> on an XO-1, that it becomes untenable.
> Has there been discussion as to when the development cycle might stop for
> the older XO-1's, (perhaps strawmanning in as F14 with .94), so that this
> innovation and progress can continue on the more modern platforms?

This is a reasonable concern.  I am just watching from the sidelines, but
I can tell you:

1.  IMHO builds running on XO-1 already have the flavor of "backports",
with XO-1.5 being the primary development target.  I don't think anyone is
delaying Sugar development due to XO-1 constraints.

2.  The system requirements (especially disk space) are affected more by
changes in Fedora than changes in Sugar.  A large amount of disk space is
taken up by files whose presence is unnecessary.  Customizing the build to
exclude these files takes significant human effort to execute and test
(see, especially if the tradeoff is
different for XO-1 vs. XO-1.5.

3.  XO-1 support is likely to be dropped when deployments indicate that
they have lost any interest in upgrading them.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list