[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] (Goals and Mission) with Microsoft in it?

James Cameron quozl at laptop.org
Sun May 14 17:46:29 EDT 2017


Yes, that's why I asked.  Installing VLC doesn't work out of the box
with 13.2.8, and there are different ways it could be done.  I don't
know what Ibiam did.  I need to know before I can reproduce.

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 10:33:27PM +0100, Samson Goddy wrote:
> $> su -
>     #> yum localinstall --nogpgcheck https://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-$(rpm -E %fedora).noarch.rpm
>     #> yum install vlc
>     #> yum install python-vlc npapi-vlc (optionals)
> 
> Can help, yum install vlc will not work until you use this. At least that how i
> got it working.
> 
> Samson
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:58 PM, James Cameron <[2]quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks.  Are you using 13.2.8?
> 
>     The Fedora repositories for Fedora 18 moved, and this was fixed in
>     13.2.8, see here;
> 
>     [3]http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/13.2.7#Fedora_
>     Repositories_Missing
> 
>     If you are using 13.2.7 or earlier, please use the workaround on that
>     page.
> 
>     I've just tested "sudo yum install vlc" on XO-1.5 with 13.2.8 and no
>     problem seen, just "No package vlc available.", so I'm not sure how
>     your system is configured; if the above workaround does not fix,
>     please show me your changed yum.repos.d files.
>    
>     On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:48:54PM +0100, Chihurumnaya Ibiam wrote:
>     > Hey James, since you're still maintaining fedora18, "sudo yum vlc" - any
>     > activity- returns this error "Error cannot retrieve metalink for
>     repository
>     > fedora18/i386" , editing the *fedora.repo files in /etc/yum.repos.d/ and
>     > changing
>     > all "https" to "http" solves the problem.
>     >
>     > Ibiam Chihurumnaya
>     >
>     > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:58 AM, James Cameron <[1][4]quozl at laptop.org>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >     Composite reply to several posts, in context, see below;
>     >
>     >     Samson wrote:
>     >     > I think we should really join the trend so that we can get more
>     >     > people using Sugar for Learning.  So what are your thought on this
>     >     > development?
>     >
>     >     I don't think it will work, as we don't have developers interested in
>     >     it.  If you're interested in it and are happy to commit fully without
>     >     relying on others, go for it.  But don't expect other resources to
>     get
>     >     involved; as the argument from numbers is not compelling enough.
>     >
>     >     There are more learning tools available for Windows.
>     >
>     >     But the numbers are not the only reason why our customers choose
>     >     Linux.
>     >
>     >     Sebastian wrote:
>     >     > Sugar barely runs [...]
>     >
>     >     Yes, you're right.
>     >
>     >     > committed releasing Sugar every six months [...] we have no release
>     >     > schedule.
>     >
>     >     Yes, you're right.
>     >
>     >     A new release of Sugar with the bug fixes since 0.110 would help
>     solve
>     >     the "barely runs" problem.
>     >
>     >     (also a release of the critical activities, not just the core;
>     >     newcomers to our community should note the term Sucrose has been in
>     >     our Taxonomy for many years, see the Wiki if you don't know what it
>     >     means.)
>     >
>     >     [2][5]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy
>     >     [3][6]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Glossary
>     >
>     >     > I don't see Sugar Labs organization as capable of strategically
>     >     > funding Sugar development in any direction. Of course, volunteers
>     >     > can work in whatever they like, if it fits their principles.
>     >
>     >     I agree, and that's the basis of my engagement; subject to also
>     >     stabilising Sugar for OLPC OS on Fedora 18 and Ubuntu 16.04 for
>     >     delivery to OLPC customers; as a custom system with all obvious (to
>     >     me) bugs fixed.
>     >
>     >     Sugar Labs is heavily benefiting from my work for OLPC, and OLPC is
>     >     benefiting from other volunteers at Sugar Labs.
>     >
>     >     Dave wrote:
>     >     > codebase could be returned to OLPC
>     >
>     >     No thanks.  Where would the Sugar Labs volunteers go who are focused
>     >     on this codebase?
>     >
>     >     OLPC already maintains a fork with the fixes, and the changes that
>     >     Sugar Labs has not accepted.  All fixes have been pushed back to
>     Sugar
>     >     Labs, but there has been no release, hence the exceedingly low
>     quality
>     >     of the Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu experience at the moment.
>     >
>     >     OLPC fork version numbers are like 0.110.0.olpc.12
>     >
>     >     > Sugar Labs could focus on the JS Sugarizer codebase.
>     >
>     >     Sugarizer isn't integrated into Sugar Labs; the repositories are
>     >     split, cooperation is minimal, and the code for activities isn't
>     >     portable to execution environments other than Sugarizer; such as
>     >     sugar-web-activity.
>     >
>     >     So I'm certainly not inclined to support any activity development on
>     >     Sugarizer; because that development won't pay back for OLPC.
>     >
>     >     I'm probably going to have to port the Moon activity from GTK+ 2 to
>     >     GTK+ 3 unless someone can make the JavaScript version work on
>     desktop.
>     >     ;-)  I did get half way through.
>     >
>     >     Zeeshan Khan also has the task for GsoC, so we might do it together.
>     >
>     >     I'd like to hear from Ignacio, Sam Parkinson and Abhijit what they
>     >     think of the port of Moon vs the JavaScript port; it may be simpler
>     to
>     >     port the JavaScript version back to Sugar.
>     >
>     >     Samuel Cantero wrote:
>     >     > We should work to find out a new release manager [...]
>     >
>     >     Ignacio is the release manager at the moment, but my guess is that
>     >     he'd welcome someone else taking the job.  Hopefully he'll speak up.
>     >
>     >     Dave wrote:
>     >     > Do those xo run the latest release?
>     >
>     >     For mass deployment in Paraguay, they can run Sugar 0.110 plus all
>     bug
>     >     fixes from OLPC by using our 13.2.8 as-is or by using it as basis of
>     >     custom build.
>     >
>     >     For individuals in Paraguay, they might run "yum update" to get Sugar
>     >     0.110 plus fixes, unless there's some problem with clock, proxy, or
>     >     yum.repos.d induced by environment of my bugs.
>     >
>     >     Samuel Cantero wrote:
>     >     > we're going to try to build a new ASLO in GSoC which must ease
>     >     > activities management, for both image builders and developers.
>     >
>     >     Please also consider Sugar Network, which Sebastian knows about, and
>     >     is used heavily, judging by the hit counts on the Sugar Labs servers.
>     >     Laura recently asked asking Sugar Labs for assistance with Sugar
>     >     Network and bringing a new deployment onto it may be helpful.
>     >
>     >     German wrote:
>     >     > At Dominican Republic, ~750 XO are running latest version of Sugar.
>     >
>     >     Good to get such positive feedback!  ;-)
>     >
>     >     --
>     >     James Cameron
>     >     [4][7]http://quozl.netrek.org/
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
>     >     [5][8]IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>     >     [6][9]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>     >
>     > References:
>     >
>     > [1] mailto:[10]quozl at laptop.org
>     > [2] [11]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy
>     > [3] [12]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Glossary
>     > [4] [13]http://quozl.netrek.org/
>     > [5] mailto:[14]IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
>     > [6] [15]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>    
>     --
>     James Cameron
>     [16]http://quozl.netrek.org/
>     _______________________________________________
>     Sugar-devel mailing list
>     [17]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>     [18]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> 
> References:
> 
> [1] https://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-$(rpm
> [2] mailto:quozl at laptop.org
> [3] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/13.2.7#Fedora_Repositories_Missing
> [4] mailto:quozl at laptop.org
> [5] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy
> [6] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Glossary
> [7] http://quozl.netrek.org/
> [8] mailto:IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [9] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
> [10] mailto:quozl at laptop.org
> [11] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy
> [12] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Glossary
> [13] http://quozl.netrek.org/
> [14] mailto:IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [15] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
> [16] http://quozl.netrek.org/
> [17] mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [18] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list