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

[James Cameron]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:53:21PM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> 
> 
> > On October 15, 2015 at 4:24 PM James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes very, that is why I went with the Fedora version for testing.
> 
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> Any reason why? Maybe not filed by you personally but that seems to be the
> accepted way when having to deal with upstream Fedora code. Or one forks
> the code and supports the fork IMHO.

No reason to.

Sources here have several fixes after 2.0.3 that might be of interest:

http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/tux4kids/tuxmath.git/log/

> 
> > 
> > > > 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.
> 
> Well I might suggest have a different bundle_id for the different
> platforms, with the activities named as such. Maybe something like
> tuxmath-4-arm.xo with the bundle_id=arm.org.tuxpaint might be the way to go
> forward without much more effort. That idea is not thought all the way
> through and is open for discussion.

Doesn't sound simple for the end user.  If they can't just click on a
bundle to install it, they will need hand holding.  When they need
hand holding, they either abandon the idea, or ask for help from the
close-to-mythical support gang.

> > 
> > > 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.
> >
> Agreed.
>  
> > > > 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.
> >
> 
> Well the user base of whatever number of XOs/classmates that SL claims are
> in use might be looking for one.

Apart from Tony, my guess is that this subset of the user base is also
mythical.

> 
> > > > 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.
> >
> 
> The OSbuilder part was posted, should a deployment want to use
> tuxmath so I don't think I need to send one in for the official
> release.

It wasn't in Adam's readme.txt, only some speculation that George is
seeking a way.

> > > 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.
> >
> 
> Maybe German 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.
> > 
> > Same here.  Oh well.
> 
> Knowing your limited bandwidth I did do a quick shakedown of .106 on F23
> SoaS, much better now that it boots.

You might also be interested in the Ubuntu build which has working
collaboration.  ;-)

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Ubuntu

> 
> > 
> > > > 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.
> >
> 
> If you do get a kernel/initrd.img/olpc.fth to test booting with I'll toss
> that on a usbkey an give it a go.
> 
> Jerry

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