<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/02/2014 01:49 PM, Sebastian Silva
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1409690951.16234.0@smtp.gmail.com" type="cite">Hi
Jerry,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let me assert something which is often forgotten here:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Deployments != Administrators</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For me, Deployments = Users.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Therefore, the easier it is for users to install and/or use
the Sugar Platform, the better.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You say it is such a big change for the better that there
exist a bunch of sugar-* packages.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I ask:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Is the Sugar Datastore at all usefull without sugar?</div>
<div>- Does any other software use the control panel packages?</div>
<div>- Is there perhaps an alternative implementation of the
aforementinoed mentioned packages that justifies splitting the
platform?</div>
<div>- Is it possible, practical, or even useful, to upgrade one
component without the others?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/OpenSUSE#openSUSE-Edu-li-f-e-gnome-classic-13.1.2">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/OpenSUSE#openSUSE-Edu-li-f-e-gnome-classic-13.1.2</a><br>
sugar 0.98.8 works very well<br>
- talk to cyberorg in #opensuse-edu (India) for details<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1409690951.16234.0@smtp.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div>I have been a strong proponent of extirpating Sugar from the
OLPC/fedora microcosmos, but frankly, adding complexity is not
helping.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Sebastian</div>
<div><br>
El mar, 2 de sep 2014 a las 2:46 PM, Jerry Vonau
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:me@jvonau.ca"><me@jvonau.ca></a> escribió:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="plaintext" style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
<blockquote> On September 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM Sebastian
Silva <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sebastian@fuentelibre.org"><sebastian@fuentelibre.org></a> 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.
</blockquote>
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</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Devel@lists.laptop.org">Devel@lists.laptop.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>