On 09/02/2014 01:49 PM, Sebastian Silva wrote:
Hi Jerry,
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.
Let me assert something which is often forgotten here:
Deployments != Administrators
For me, Deployments = Users.
Therefore, the easier it is for users to install and/or use the Sugar
Platform, the better.
You say it is such a big change for the better that there exist a
bunch of sugar-* packages.
I ask:
- Is the Sugar Datastore at all usefull without sugar?
- Does any other software use the control panel packages?
- Is there perhaps an alternative implementation of the aforementinoed
mentioned packages that justifies splitting the platform?
- Is it possible, practical, or even useful, to upgrade one component
without the others?
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).
see:
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/OpenSUSE#openSUSE-Edu-li-f-e-gnome-classic-13.1.2
sugar 0.98.8 works very well
- talk to cyberorg in #opensuse-edu (India) for details
I have been a strong proponent of extirpating Sugar from the
OLPC/fedora microcosmos, but frankly, adding complexity is not helping.
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).
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.
Regards,
Sebastian
El mar, 2 de sep 2014 a las 2:46 PM, Jerry Vonau <m...@jvonau.ca> escribió:
On September 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM Sebastian Silva
<sebast...@fuentelibre.org> 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.
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
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
de...@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
