<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">The "tyranny of open" and of the self-appointed gate keepers.<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Alan<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: Bert Freudenberg <bert@freudenbergs.de><br>To: Morgan Collett <morgan.collett@gmail.com><br>Cc: Education <its.an.education..project@tema.lo-res.org>; José L. Redrejo Rodríguez <jredrejo@edu.juntaextremadura.net>; sugar List <sugar@lists.laptop.org><br>Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 7:50:20 AM<br>Subject: Re: [IAEP] Core Sugar framework now in Debian Testing!<br><br><br>On 23.05.2008, at 14:01, Morgan Collett wrote:<br><br>> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Jonas Smedegaard
<<a ymailto="mailto:dr@jones.dk" href="mailto:dr@jones.dk">dr@jones..dk</a>> <br>> wrote:<br>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>>> Hash: SHA1<br>>><br>>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 04:39:19PM -0600, Debian testing watch wrote:<br>>>> FYI: The status of the sugar source package<br>>>> in Debian's testing distribution has changed.<br>>>><br>>>> Previous version: (not in testing)<br>>>> Current version: 0.79.4-2<br>>><br>>> All core Sugar packages are now in Debian Testing!<br>>><br>>> With "core" I mean all Sugar software except activities themselves..<br>>><br>>> (upstream have no clear definition of "core" - it seems they agree <br>>> that<br>>> Sugar should always include some activities, but does not agree on <br>>> some<br>>> common default "core" set of activities...)<br>><br>> You
must have missed the recent activity on the sugar list... Sugar as<br>> an upstream project now has designated "demo" activities which distros<br>> can choose to bundle.<br>><br>> <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs..org/go/Taxonomy" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy</a> gives names to different<br>> components in the stack which as been known in whole or part as<br>> "Sugar". Fructose now refers to the activities bundled with Sugar.<br>><br>> <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Modules" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Modules</a> lists Sugar components,<br>> dependencies and these activities.<br>><br>> <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Release" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Release</a> shows how releases are done of<br>> the Sugar (I mean, Glucose) modules and Fructose activities.<br>><br>> <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Roadmap"
target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Roadmap</a> shows the planned release<br>> strategy for the next few months.<br>><br>>> We need more activities packaged! Please speak up if you are <br>>> interested<br>>> in helping out.<br>><br>> I haven't done packaging before - it's always been on my TODO list to<br>> learn. I run Ubuntu, but I'm interested in getting involved (with the<br>> view to making sure Ubuntu releases with the appropriate versions of<br>> the various components). Please remind me where your documentation is,<br>> and what list to join. I think we should have a page on the sugarlabs<br>> wiki tracking each distro's packaging.<br>><br>> I helped test Jani's Ubuntu packages before the hardy release.<br>> Unfortunately I only realised days before the release that the sugar<br>> versions included were not the most appropriate versions: taken from a<br>> different
branch to the stable release. While it looks the same as the<br>> stable release (0.75.x in build 703) there are differences, which may<br>> mean bugs in the Ubuntu version (0.79.0) which were fixed in the<br>> 0.75..x series after that release. So I really want to see distro<br>> releases (especially Ubuntu) having the most appropriate versions of<br>> the Sugar stack.<br>><br>> We are not OpenSSL, but... I do think it is important that we maintain<br>> good communication with distro packagers to assist in this.<br><br><br>Etoys is missing, and is about to be rejected by Debian's ftp masters. <br>This time not because of the license (which finally was solved) but <br>because of Squeak's use of object memory snapshots (a.k.a. images). <br>See below.<br><br>- Bert -<br><br><br><br>Begin forwarded message:<br><br>> From: Bert Freudenberg <<a ymailto="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de"
href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>><br>> Date: 23. Mai 2008 11:56:38 MESZ<br>> To: <a ymailto="mailto:ftpmaster@debian.org" href="mailto:ftpmaster@debian.org">ftpmaster@debian.org</a><br>> Cc: "José L. Redrejo Rodríguez" <<a ymailto="mailto:jredrejo@edu.juntaextremadura.net" href="mailto:jredrejo@edu.juntaextremadura.net">jredrejo@edu.juntaextremadura.net</a>>, <a ymailto="mailto:holger@layer-acht.org" href="mailto:holger@layer-acht.org">holger@layer-acht.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: etoys_3.0.1916+svn132-1_amd64.changes (almost) REJECTED<br>><br>> On 21.05.2008, at 23:06, Thomas Viehmann wrote:<br>>> Hi José, Bert, Holger,<br>>><br>>> this is, unfortunately, the REJECT of etoys.<br>>> First of all, thanks Bert, Holger, José for the discussion of some of<br>>> the concepts. However, I am afraid that there are some fundamental<br>>> concerns that have not been
eliminated (yet). As such I would like to<br>>> invite you to start a discussion on the packaging of squeak session<br>>> images on <a ymailto="mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org" href="mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org">debian-devel@lists.debian.org</a>. Feel free to forward this<br>>> mail if you consider it useful as a starting point.<br>>><br>>> It seems to me that the method of distributing VM sessions in .image<br>>> files as the preferred form of modification does not match too well<br>>> with Debian practices of compiling packages from source and having<br>>> easy access to the differences between various versions of a package.<br>>><br>>> So as far as I understand it it seems like a typical squeak image<br>>> cannot be bootstrapped[1] from (textual) source and that the typical<br>>> mode of operation is to modify some known image and distribute the<br>>> result.
As such, the preferred form of modification is indeed the<br>>> image file.<br>>><br>>> This, in my opinion, raises at least the following questions that <br>>> seem<br>>> fundamental to me:<br>>><br>>> - How easy should it be to figure out what is in an image?<br>>> While the source code to any class seems to be available, the<br>>> image is more than that. Does that matter? Should source of Debian<br>>> packages be auditable and is etoys currently auditable easily<br>>> enough?<br>>><br>>> - Does Debian (including the various teams that might have to take<br>>> a look at your packages) want to have easy access to the<br>>> differences between upstream version, one Debian revision and<br>>> another? Do squeak session images provide this in a way that<br>>> is acceptable to Debian?<br>>><br>>> From the squeak wiki pages and your
explanations it seems that what I<br>>> would consider at least partial solutions exist, but it seems that<br>>> either I am still lacking understanding of important concepts or<br>>> that the etoys packaging (Debian and maybe also upstream) could<br>>> possibly be made a bit more transparent.<br>>> Of course, we might find out that my difficulties with the<br>>> perspective of squeak images in Debian originate in misconceptions of<br>>> Debian packaging and maintenance that I may have. Either way, I would<br>>> appreciate if we could discuss this with the Debian development <br>>> public<br>>> at large and draw on their additional expertise.<br>>><br>>> Kind regards<br>>><br>>> Thomas<br>>><br>>> 1. <a href="http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/769" target="_blank">http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/769</a><br>>> -- Thomas Viehmann, <a
href="http://thomas.viehmann.net/" target="_blank">http://thomas.viehmann.net/</a><br>><br>><br>><br>> Yes, please discuss this. It would be sad if Squeak would not be <br>> allowed into Debian just because it uses a different development <br>> philosophy. It finally complies with the DFSG after the huge <br>> relicensing effort. Communities like LinEx (which is Debian-based) <br>> had included it even before that, but now finally they have the <br>> chance to included it properly. There is active upstream <br>> development.. José is a maintainer who does understand Smalltalk <br>> well. Squeak comes with all the tools to examine the image (they are <br>> in the image). It certainly is not perfect, but that requirement <br>> would be a high bar indeed.<br>><br>> One very concrete urge to get it included is the Sugar environment. <br>> It was
initiated by OLPC first, but is now breaking free from it. <br>> Etoys is one of the basic components of Sugar, used by kids and <br>> teachers worldwide. There will certainly be many users who prefer to <br>> run Sugar on Debian. Again, it would be sad if they were deprived of <br>> parts of Sugar, just because of the fear of the unkown.<br>><br>> So long,<br>><br>> - Bert -<br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Its.an.education.project mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Its.an.education.project@lists.sugarlabs.org" href="mailto:Its.an.education.project@lists.sugarlabs.org">Its.an.education.project@lists.sugarlabs.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.lo-res.org/mailman/listinfo/its.an.education.project" target="_blank">http://lists.lo-res.org/mailman/listinfo/its.an.education.project</a><br></div></div></div><br>
</body></html>