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

[James Cameron]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:56:06AM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> > 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. 

No, I meant 2.0.3.

> > 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.

Interesting.

> 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.

No thanks.

> > 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.

Yes, but that's what the public wanted, despite the waste of space.

> 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?

No, not at this stage of the evolution of Sugar.  That horse has
bolted, in my opinion.

> > 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?

Good idea.  But I've no answer.

> > 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.

The .ini files are in git, so changing them would be a patch, sorry if
that was not clear.

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

I've no answer.

> > 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.

Same here.  Oh well.

> > 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?

Agreed, off topic.  No later kernel will boot on XO-1.75 or XO-4.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/