[Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build

[Gonzalo Odiard]

Just a few points:

* If anybody want install all the control-panel sections, can install
sugar-cp-all.
* You can install all sugar with "yum install @sugar-desktop sugar-runner"
[1]

If there are some dependency not working, is a bug, and we can try to solve
it.
As a example, I filled this ticket [2] and pbrobinson fixed the problem
really fast.

About mixing sugar-datastore / sugar-toolkit-gtk3 / sugar,
was discussed recently, but we didn't find any good reason to do it.
Have sense keep at least the toolkit separated from sugar, because that is
the interface
we provide to the activities. The code in Sugar (jarabe) is private,
and we can change it without fear of break activities.

Is true that is difficult make Sugar + activities work on other
distributions,
but that is (in general) due to external dependencies (like you said,
Abiword in the case of Write).
In general "pure python" activities, will not have problems.

Some of the problems making difficult work on other distributions
are related to the work needed to make work the XO touch.
At the time, the support of touch in Linux in general, and in Gtk in
particular,
was not ready, and OLPC invested a lot of work to do it usable.
That patches went upstream, but anybody who works on open source projects
know,
takes a time until that changes are distributed.

I think would be great have good packages on debian and derivatives,
but don't know who can do it.

Gonzalo

[1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Fedora
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129308


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Sebastian Silva <sebastian at fuentelibre.org>
wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
>
> As I've not had the pleasure of working with you directly and I have never
> been an OLPC associate, whatever that is, and, to my knowledge, there is no
> such thing as a Sugar Labs associate, therefore I don't feel offended by
> your (perceived) aggressive tone, so I hope it was not directed at me.
>
> Let me assert something which is often forgotten here:
>
> Deployments != Administrators
>
> For me, Deployments = Users.
>
> Therefore, the easier it is for users to install and/or use the Sugar
> Platform, the better.
>
> You say it is such a big change for the better that there exist a bunch of
> sugar-* packages.
>
> I ask:
>
> - Is the Sugar Datastore at all usefull without sugar?
> - Does any other software use the control panel packages?
> - Is there perhaps an alternative implementation of the aforementinoed
> mentioned packages that justifies splitting the platform?
> - Is it possible, practical, or even useful, to upgrade one component
> without the others?
>
> Now, as a deployment volunteer, let me tell you (you probably know this)
> that trying to work with Sugar on any GNU distribution other than fedora is
> a nightmare, as the platform does not declare it's dependencies properly,
> and does not communicate upstream effectively, so, for instance, Write
> never works, speech never works, and half the activities don't work (maybe
> I'm exaggerating out of frustration).
>
> I have been a strong proponent of extirpating Sugar from the OLPC/fedora
> microcosmos, but frankly, adding complexity is not helping.
>
> Now, from the technical point of view, perhaps a simple sugar-platform
> package that pulls ALL of Sugar and glucose and dependencies would not be
> so hard to do, and then the deployment-administrator-supporters can just
> omit this package and manually pick and chop sugar as they see fit (or are
> requested to do).
>
> I feel sad that to this day and age, SugarLabs has not proven to be much
> more than an appendix of OLPC, even to hard working members of the
> community such as yourself.
>
> Regards,
> Sebastian
>
> El mar, 2 de sep 2014 a las 2:46 PM, Jerry Vonau <me at jvonau.ca> escribió:
>
>  On September 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM Sebastian Silva <
> sebastian at fuentelibre.org> wrote: I don't care one way or the other how
> you guys configure olpc-os-builder, but as a Sugar platform contributor, I
> think "sugar" packages should come with all the bells and whistles
> included, and if any deployment wants to chop and censor functionality,
> then it should be their problem, not the other way around.
>
>   So much for being "volunteer" deployment friendly, now you have to "fix
> sugar" at the image creation time, patching out/in what you want in the
> image, in place of just not installing certain functionality in the first
> place. Are you suggesting that datastore, toolkit(s), base, be re-merged
> into a single massive rpm? I think not, the control-panel rpm split is a
> natural progression of this progressive thinking. This take it or leave it
> attitude that is displayed here is the reason myself and Dextrose(Activity
> Central) came into being part of the ecosystem in the first place, for the
> needs of the deployment. We listened to what the deployment wanted to do
> and worked towards that goal. I guess that this is just another way to
> ensure further work is only done by a sugarlabs/olpc associate. Just my 3
> cents, Jerry
>
>


-- 
Gonzalo Odiard

SugarLabs - Software for children learning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20140902/dd20a631/attachment.html>