[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] activites known not to either work at all or not on certin platforms

[Jonas Smedegaard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:24:20AM -0500, Luke Faraone wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>
>> Debian POV: Someone needs to volunteer packaging 
>> "sugar-etoys-activity". Drop an email to 
>> debian-olpc-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org .
>>
>> Ubuntu POV: Someone needs to volunteer hacking[1] together a sugar 
>> activity package until a Debian package can be adopted. More info at 
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SugarTeam
>>
>> I recommend helping as "upstream" as possible instead of only locally 
>> for Ubuntu. YMMV.
>>
>
>Yes, but our "hacks" are the result of a lack of understanding of your 
>git-based packaging;

That is one way to put it.

Another is that you have had no interest in starting out with simple 
stuff before complex stuff. I kept recommending you to try package an 
activity with no odd dependencies (i.e. written in Python), but you kept 
wanting to upgrade core Sugar libraries.

You do not even need to use my packaging style. Just do not expect my 
help, then. Discuss it with other members of the OLPC Alioth list, with 
debian-mentors or whatever.


All I say here is to avoid duplicate work: Package for Debian and pull 
that into derivatives, rather than packaging uniquely for each pet 
derived distro.



>It's interesting that Ubuntu had *working* sugar packages with *more* 
>working activities six months ago. This is no longer the case, as we've 
>synced to Debian packaging (which had some show-stopper bugs that 
>required us to patch *each* activity you/we were shipping).

Blame yourself for abandoning superior(?) packaging! My reasons for 
different packaging style than older work by Jani Monoses is here: 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2008-April/000084.html

Blame yourself for needing distro-specific workarounds: They are caused 
by your "running ahead" of Debian and then later wanting to adopt Debian 
packaging that when in slightly different direction than your earlier 
work.


>If you'd support a sugar-whatever-activity package that didn't use 
>git-buildpackage or the multi-branch/tree workflow, I'd be happy to 
>produce one,

If you by "you" are referring to Debian, then sure, Debian supports 
other packaging styles.

If you are referring to me personally, then no, I see no reason to 
support any other packaging styles than I want to use myself.

If you are referring to the Alioth team, then feel free to use other 
schemes. I am not the law. Heck, I am not even an admin of that group. I 
just happen to actually get some work done.


Your freedom to choose packaging style should come as no surprise:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2008-December/000681.html
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2009-January/000885.html
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2009-February/000894.html


>but as it stands the build and import process is undocumented.

Bullshit!

Complex parts, irrelevant for activity packaging, is missing.

So stop whining and start packaging some simple Sugar activities.


 - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

   [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmTDA8ACgkQn7DbMsAkQLhHXACghUfXhv3eV5X6hCmYExiWr5Z9
dg8AnjuKQyfPiL3vAHNY/DR9+DybpBP7
=V4zH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----