[Sugar-devel] How to install TuxMath and TuxPaint on Release 13.2.5+ on "ALL" XOs!

[Jerry Vonau]

> On October 15, 2015 at 1:17 AM James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Can you tell us the length of the testing you've done?
> 

Just opening the activity, poke around a bit with the intent that educators
can make an evaluation and report bugs. 

> My tests of 2.0.3 on 31st August were horrifying.  Too unstable.  It
> keeps crashing, within minutes.  Errors like "Video Surface changed
> from outside of SDL_Extras!"
>

Did you mean to say 2.0.1 here? That is what yum installed from Fedora for
me. 

> Tony reported similar on sugar-devel@ on 2nd June, with Segmentation
> Fault.  Looking back at the mail thread, we think these are Fedora
> related issues; the same version of TuxMath works fine on Ubuntu, and
> later Fedora.

I'm unsure where version 2.0.3 you refer above to is coming from or who
might of created the rpm as there is no such version released from fedora
seems like a one-off fork to me.

F19 at tuxmath-2.0.1-4.fc19.i686.rpm, F20 at tuxmath-2.0.1-5.fc20.i686.rpm,
F21 at tuxmath-2.0.1-7.fc21.i686.rpm, F22 at tuxmath-2.0.1-7.fc22.i686.rpm.


If your suggesting that Fedora might want to update the released version to
2.0.3, file a bug at Fedora against tuxmath stating such.

> In the end, he agreed we need "someone to fix TuxMath
> on Fedora 18, and then package it in the same way as before, as a
> TuxMath-4.xo"
>

When you say "same way as before" as in bundle all the different arches'
libraries with the .xo file? That is a waste of space for XO-1s with
unneeded files.

Too bad that supported_arches= didn't make it into the activity.info file,
that would gone a long way in sorting out the question of which arches the
activity can run on and could possibly be used by ALSO to inform the person
downloading before installing something that it will not work at all on
their machine's platform. Would(should?) something like that be worthy of
GSOC effort?
 
> The difference between your TuxMath-3.1.xo and TuxMath-3.2.xo is the
> latter has "max_participants = 1", meaning it can't be shared by
> collaboration.  That's better.
> 

Agreed, trying to share audio might cause issues, that was the idea behind
using max_participants=1 in the activity.info file, that was thought up
while I was part of AU in the past and made it into sugar proper.

> Your arm/ directory is empty.  We have XO-1.75 and XO-4 packages
> already:
> 
> http://dev.laptop.org/~german/rpms/tuxmath/
>

That would explain where version 2.0.3 is coming from but above you said
that 2.0.3 was buggy. I would like some clarification please, might it need
a later version of some dependence also or is missing one?

> When you have it working with OSBuilder, please submit a patch.
>

No patching needed, would just be entries in the build's ini file to enable
the above repo, install the rpms and activities.

Looks like German has already done that, otherwise why would the yum repo
live on dev.laptop.org like rpmdropbox does?

> I'm glad this isn't turning out to be one of those rainbow pooing
> unicorn events,
 
When I'm involved it never is, IMHO that would apply to those events where
talks are given about a subject but don't really do anything useful to make
the deployment or end-user's life easier.

> and that somebody is actually working on it!
>

Well I'm not bug fixing, just opening the door for others to test and find
them.
 
> Meanwhile, I'm looking for kernel developers to help with porting to
> later kernels on all XO laptops so that we can go to a more recent
> Fedora.

Off topic for this thread until released, but what is missing/doesn't work?

Jerry