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

[Jerry Vonau]

> On October 16, 2015 at 4:02 AM James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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/
> 

If I file the request at Fedora that will be handy, 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.
> > 
> > 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.
>

I don't see how the end-user click to install is affected, the activity
developer would be preparing the .xo bundle for installation. I'm
suggesting that if the bundle contains large libraries at activity
packaging time one could include support for a single architecture while
having the architecture info form part of the activity name. The bundle_id=
part would be for the updater backend to be able to tell the difference
between available support and maybe displaying on the SL's activity
website. 

> > > 
> > > > 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.
>

The readme is intended for an at home do-it-yourself howto, I pointed
George to the info on how to use the OS-builder module. 
 
> > > > 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.  ;-)
> 

No not really, as with any image the fix might be in the build scripts and
not in the distribution proper. It's still broken on Fedora, that is my
concern. Remember SL is the upstream source for Fedora's source used to
package up sugar for redistribution in fedora.

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

What I would be interested in is the build scripts that built the
installer's iso image (noted as being x86_64) to create an i686 equivalent
to test on XO-1.5. I think I could boot off of a usbkey for some quick
testing but the i686 iso is not available to try.

Not being an Ubuntu user, how is the ARM support on Ubuntu?

Jerry