Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
#229 closed defect (notsugar)
Software update for joyride 2631 is pointing to the G1G1 activity group
| Reported by: | garycmartin | Owned by: | marcopg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Sugar | Version: | 0.83.x |
| Severity: | Blocker | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | erikos, tomeu | Distribution/OS: | Unspecified |
| Bug Status: | Unconfirmed |
Description
Not sure if this is intended (due to work/plans for some SL way of distributing activities?) If software update is still going to be here and using activity groups, it should point to http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activities/Joyride so we can try and get the right list of activities there for easy installation and testing, ready for a release.
Change History (6)
comment:1 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 14 years ago by erikos
comment:2 Changed 14 years ago by marcopg
- Cc erikos tomeu added
We will need some kind of software updater for .xo bundles. In the medium term I hope we will integrate it with addons.sl.org. But as a start we could make Scott updater part of glucose (perhaps integrate it in the sugar module directly?) and clone the w.l.o wiki pages on w.sl.o, renaming Joyride to 0.84. If someone has time to work on it, this is something I think we should break the freeze for.
comment:3 Changed 14 years ago by wadeb
FWIW, I don't think we should take the Software Updater *as is* from OLPC. It has serious user interface issues.
The biggest is that it's currently working as both an activity installer *and* updater, but the interface was only designed to be an updater. Either a separate activity installer interface needs to be written, or else the ability to download and install new activities should be removed.
comment:4 Changed 14 years ago by marcopg
I agree that we should improve and maybe redesign it. But the choice for 0.84 at this point is OLPC updater vs no updater at all. And I *tend* to think OLPC updater is better than nothing. It will be at least something that distributors can decide to use if they want (and maybe that's a point in favour of keeping it a separate module, maybe even outside glucose).
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 1 Changed 14 years ago by garycmartin
Replying to erikos:
Gary, I would only test the sugar specific things for now. The software updater is not part of Sucrose, and no concrete plan has been made, how SL will handle those cases. So, i think best is to give feedback on the sugar specific parts for now.
Thanks for the feedback Simon, yes I understand, only raised it as I think would be a gaping maw for Sugar if it's dropped and nothing else fills the gap by release time.
comment:6 Changed 14 years ago by marcopg
- Bug Status set to Unconfimed
- Distribution/OS set to Unspecified
- Resolution set to notsugar
- Severity set to Blocker
- Status changed from new to closed
We have a ticket by cjb about integrating software updater. For now this is notsugar.
Gary, I would only test the sugar specific things for now. The software updater is not part of Sucrose, and no concrete plan has been made, how SL will handle those cases. So, i think best is to give feedback on the sugar specific parts for now.
Thanks.