Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
Gonzalo's question seems to suggest that the dependency on sugar-cp-background should be declared by the sugar package spec file. I disagree. I think it should be a decision by deployment team. Yes. That is the reason I asked. Anyway, no problem from my part if the rpm is added by default in kspkglist.50.sugar.inc Gonzalo ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
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. Regards, Sebastian El mar, 2 de sep 2014 a las 10:01 AM, Gonzalo Odiard godi...@sugarlabs.org escribió: Gonzalo's question seems to suggest that the dependency on sugar-cp-background should be declared by the sugar package spec file. I disagree. I think it should be a decision by deployment team. Yes. That is the reason I asked. Anyway, no problem from my part if the rpm is added by default in kspkglist.50.sugar.inc Gonzalo ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
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. Jerry, Please stop with this tone. Try to be constructive, and expose technical reasons for your opinions. If anybody ever wanted ensure further work is only done by a sugarlabs/olpc associate as you said, we would not publish the repositories and discuss in open mailing lists. Gonzalo ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:47 PM, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: G'day German, Perhaps Gonzalo was asking, in your two builds, which version of the sugar- package was chosen by olpc-os-builder? sudo rpm -q sugar Gonzalo's question seems to suggest that the dependency on sugar-cp-background should be declared by the sugar package spec file. I disagree. I think it should be a decision by deployment team. For the OLPC dropbox sugar package [1] the spec file [2] does not have a Requires for sugar-cp-all or sugar-cp-background, though the sugar-cp-all has a Requires for sugar-cp-background. kspkglist.50.sugar.inc [3] in olpc-os-builder has a list of the sugar-cp-* packages, but not sugar-cp-background (thanks Jerry), and not sugar-cp-all. So you can either add sugar-cp-background to kspkglist.50.sugar.inc, or add the package to the .ini file. gnome-backgrounds might also be added, although you might also add deployment themed backgrounds. I'm in favour of adding sugar-cp-background to kspkglist.50.sugar.inc in OLPC's repository, but I shall wait for this discussion to resolve. +1 from, in fact I am sendig you a patch right now (that also fixes on more issues with these sugar-cp* deps) References 1. http://rpmdropbox.laptop.org/f20/sugar-0.102.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 2. http://dev.laptop.org/~quozl/z/1XOc4w.txt 3. http://dev.laptop.org/git/projects/olpc-os-builder/tree/modules/sugar/kspkglist.50.sugar.inc On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 07:38:50AM -0600, German Ruiz - FundacionZT wrote: I have 2 scenarios: Sugar 0.100 XO using customized 13.2.0 version, using au1b-updates repo, sugar-cp-background installed was sugar-cp-background-0.100.1.22.olpcau.noarch Sugar 0.102 XO using customized version from olpc-os-builder using SL102 branch, sugar-cp-background installed was sugar-cp-background-0.102.0-1.fc18.noarch. Both rpm packages installed from yum. 2014-08-30 16:02 GMT-06:00 Gonzalo Odiard [1]godi...@sugarlabs.org: Hmm, what sugar rpm are you using, should install sugar-cp-background as a dependency. Gonzalo On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 12:33 PM, German Ruiz - FundacionZT [2] gr...@fundacionzt.org wrote: There was no background section at Control Panel, after install sugar-cp-background it is present, but there is no image to set as background. [3]http://imgur.com/JW0goSa 2014-08-29 19:17 GMT-06:00 Jerry Vonau [4]m...@jvonau.ca: Would that not require the sugar-cp-background rpm to installed in the image? Don't see it listed in OOB[1]. 1. [5] https://github.com/sugarlabs/olpc-os-builder/blob/SL102/modules/ sugar/kspkglist.50.sugar.inc Jerry On August 29, 2014 at 7:48 PM Gonzalo Odiard [6] godi...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Can you see the background section in the control panel? On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, German Ruiz - FundacionZT [7]gr...@fundacionzt.org wrote: Also, i forget to mention, how can i try the background features? [8]http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/ Background_image_on_home_view 2014-08-29 14:23 GMT-06:00 Gonzalo Odiard [9] godi...@sugarlabs.org: Walter, are these activities updated to use GSettings? Gonzalo On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Walter Bender [10]walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote: Re ChangeIcon, try copying some svg files into ~/.icon from the Terminal program. There is an activity for setting up multiple home views: [4] [11] http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/ 4722 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:59 PM, German Ruiz - FundacionZT [12]gr...@fundacionzt.org wrote: Hello I'm trying to create a custo mized image based on Sugar 0.102, with features of Sugar 0.100 [0][1] This is what i'm using: - OS Builder forked from [13]https://github.com/sugarlabs/olpc-os-builder, branch SL102 - No gnome, just sugar But i have some problems, for example: - Icon Change activity, failed to start, here is the log
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
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). 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 Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
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 Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
Just a few points: * If anybody want install all the control-panel sections, can install sugar-cp-all. * You can install all sugar with yum install @sugar-desktop sugar-runner [1] If there are some dependency not working, is a bug, and we can try to solve it. As a example, I filled this ticket [2] and pbrobinson fixed the problem really fast. About mixing sugar-datastore / sugar-toolkit-gtk3 / sugar, was discussed recently, but we didn't find any good reason to do it. Have sense keep at least the toolkit separated from sugar, because that is the interface we provide to the activities. The code in Sugar (jarabe) is private, and we can change it without fear of break activities. Is true that is difficult make Sugar + activities work on other distributions, but that is (in general) due to external dependencies (like you said, Abiword in the case of Write). In general pure python activities, will not have problems. Some of the problems making difficult work on other distributions are related to the work needed to make work the XO touch. At the time, the support of touch in Linux in general, and in Gtk in particular, was not ready, and OLPC invested a lot of work to do it usable. That patches went upstream, but anybody who works on open source projects know, takes a time until that changes are distributed. I think would be great have good packages on debian and derivatives, but don't know who can do it. Gonzalo [1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Fedora [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129308 On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Sebastian Silva sebast...@fuentelibre.org 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). 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 -- Gonzalo Odiard SugarLabs -
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
what a fun time we've had, eh? ;-) i agree with sebastian on a monolithic sugar rpm; provided there is an easy way to disable components not required by a user. i dislike having many packages for what is, on the face of it, a single desktop solution. i agree with jerry that making such a significant change would make yet another barrier to entry as a developer or integrator. i disagree with gonzalo that publishing repositories and open mailing list discussions is enough for an ecosystem to be open to others. it is helpful, but it is not enough. i agree with sebastian that sugar is too entrained with fedora; perhaps because most people who integrate sugar do so on fedora, and most developers seem to use fedora. i disagree with thomas with respect to the opensuse 13.1 image; since it is sugar 0.98, it is no proof of a viable downstream ecosystem. suggested actions: - declare the external dependencies in the git repositories for each sugar source collection, using some consistent convention, e.g. a DEPENDENCIES file, - regularly verify the DEPENDENCIES file matches up with the downstream Fedora .spec files, - in the sugar.spec file, define a sugar-all metapackage that declares a dependency on sugar, and sugar-cp-all, and anything else not yet mentioned, ;-) - always use devel@lists.laptop.org for olpc-os-builder discussions, so that sugar developers without a fedora background need not be interrupted. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
G'day German, Perhaps Gonzalo was asking, in your two builds, which version of the sugar- package was chosen by olpc-os-builder? sudo rpm -q sugar Gonzalo's question seems to suggest that the dependency on sugar-cp-background should be declared by the sugar package spec file. I disagree. I think it should be a decision by deployment team. For the OLPC dropbox sugar package [1] the spec file [2] does not have a Requires for sugar-cp-all or sugar-cp-background, though the sugar-cp-all has a Requires for sugar-cp-background. kspkglist.50.sugar.inc [3] in olpc-os-builder has a list of the sugar-cp-* packages, but not sugar-cp-background (thanks Jerry), and not sugar-cp-all. So you can either add sugar-cp-background to kspkglist.50.sugar.inc, or add the package to the .ini file. gnome-backgrounds might also be added, although you might also add deployment themed backgrounds. I'm in favour of adding sugar-cp-background to kspkglist.50.sugar.inc in OLPC's repository, but I shall wait for this discussion to resolve. References 1. http://rpmdropbox.laptop.org/f20/sugar-0.102.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 2. http://dev.laptop.org/~quozl/z/1XOc4w.txt 3. http://dev.laptop.org/git/projects/olpc-os-builder/tree/modules/sugar/kspkglist.50.sugar.inc On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 07:38:50AM -0600, German Ruiz - FundacionZT wrote: I have 2 scenarios: Sugar 0.100 XO using customized 13.2.0 version, using au1b-updates repo, sugar-cp-background installed was sugar-cp-background-0.100.1.22.olpcau.noarch Sugar 0.102 XO using customized version from olpc-os-builder using SL102 branch, sugar-cp-background installed was sugar-cp-background-0.102.0-1.fc18.noarch. Both rpm packages installed from yum. 2014-08-30 16:02 GMT-06:00 Gonzalo Odiard [1]godi...@sugarlabs.org: Hmm, what sugar rpm are you using, should install sugar-cp-background as a dependency. Gonzalo On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 12:33 PM, German Ruiz - FundacionZT [2] gr...@fundacionzt.org wrote: There was no background section at Control Panel, after install sugar-cp-background it is present, but there is no image to set as background. [3]http://imgur.com/JW0goSa 2014-08-29 19:17 GMT-06:00 Jerry Vonau [4]m...@jvonau.ca: Would that not require the sugar-cp-background rpm to installed in the image? Don't see it listed in OOB[1]. 1. [5]https://github.com/sugarlabs/olpc-os-builder/blob/SL102/modules/ sugar/kspkglist.50.sugar.inc Jerry On August 29, 2014 at 7:48 PM Gonzalo Odiard [6] godi...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Can you see the background section in the control panel? On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, German Ruiz - FundacionZT [7]gr...@fundacionzt.org wrote: Also, i forget to mention, how can i try the background features? [8]http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/ Background_image_on_home_view 2014-08-29 14:23 GMT-06:00 Gonzalo Odiard [9] godi...@sugarlabs.org: Walter, are these activities updated to use GSettings? Gonzalo On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Walter Bender [10]walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote: Re ChangeIcon, try copying some svg files into ~/.icon from the Terminal program. There is an activity for setting up multiple home views: [4] [11]http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/ 4722 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:59 PM, German Ruiz - FundacionZT [12]gr...@fundacionzt.org wrote: Hello I'm trying to create a custo mized image based on Sugar 0.102, with features of Sugar 0.100 [0][1] This is what i'm using: - OS Builder forked from [13]https://github.com/sugarlabs/olpc-os-builder, branch SL102 - No gnome, just sugar But i have some problems, for example: - Icon Change activity, failed to start, here is the log [2] - When i try to test the multiple home views, they are not present after restart Sugar, this is what i type at Terminal activity as regular user: gconftool-2 -s
