Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] GPL non compliance? was Re: GPL non-compliance, was Re: GPLv3
On Dienstag, 26. April 2011, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote: No, The plan Ceibal don't give the root access neither a developer key for programmers, with the new OS upgrade. are those XOs regularily updated or would it be rather easy to possible create a somewhat lasting jailbreak-application? ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Pilot in Berlin, Germany
Hi Simon, (full quote for the benefit of olpc...@l.d.o) On Dienstag, 1. September 2009, Simon Schampijer wrote: some of you may know, I am doing a Sugar Pilot here in Germany. I try to keep my blog (listed on the sugarlabs planet as well) about my findings up to date [1]. Oh, great!! Is there any information about the pilot available in German? For technical findings (how to setup nfs, ldap on Fedora for example) the plan is to use the wiki. 'Debatable things' I will try to bring up on the mailing list as well. [1] http://erikos.sweettimez.de/ --- Categories: Sugar, Deployment and Teaching [2] http://planet.sugarlabs.org/ regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] meetup in Europe
Hi, On Dienstag, 7. April 2009, Sascha Silbe wrote: On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 02:44:07AM +0200, Bernie Innocenti wrote: Have you considered driving to Paris? Yes, I have (see my first reply). Unless someone else is coming with us (and providing a car), I would need to check with our carsharing club I dont have a car (but a drivers licence) and would like to join you in Hamburg (if the meeting is on May 16th in Paris). regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Mailing list moderators needed
Hi, On Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2009, Bernie Innocenti wrote: We'd need someone with some free time to volunteer for this job. If you use the commandline tool listadmin the job is really easy to do. regards, Holger (who moderates quite a few lists with it, which costs me probably a minute a day. Still I don't really want to add more (high traffic) lists (like these here) too it :) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] activites known not to either work at all or not on certin platforms
Hi David, On Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2009, David Van Assche wrote: The problem is that 0.82 is not stable at all As said before, if there are problems related to particular packaging in Debian, please file bugs. (For example I still need to test whether read+write are really broken on Lenny and if so, file bugs. I believe those would qualify for a Lenny pointrelease. For write, I know it's broken (just not exactly how and how to fix it), for read I need to test.) (And of course, filing bugs for stuff you know it's fixed in a newer upstream release is quite pointless, unless you know we can cherry-pick some patch.) Debian now contains the most unstable sugar release there is... is that where it wants to be? Affecting every *fork* and forcing us to hack around the issues? Well, Debian happily gives you and anybody the right to fork and modify our stuff (it's mostly not ours, but upstreams), but Debian OTOH doesnt have any obligation to make forking easier or suit the needs of forks (much less than a specific fork also) in any way. (There are some maintainers more interested in specific forks than others. So your experiences may vary.) And frankly, I dont see your problem. If Ubuntu (or any other fork) is not happy with package X, you are free to base your packages on something else. This has been routinely done in Ubuntu, for example Ubuntu 8.10 AFAIK (writing this offline..) contains KDE 4.x, while Debian sid still has 3.5.10. And there have been several other cases like this. Sure, in the long term this is not really optimal, but there is also nothing fundamentally wrong with it. So yes, sometimes in some areas its more work than in others, but I don't see why for example I, who doesnt care about Ubuntu, should spend my energy on something I dont care about. (I also dont want to stand in the way just for the sake of it, but that's not what I'm doing or what Jonas has suggested.) regards, Holger P.S.. I care about Ubuntu users, but not much about this product (=Ubuntu). Mostly because Ubuntu (IME) doesnt really care about Debian. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Linuxtag 2009 - how do we want to promote Sugar Labs
Hi Simon, On Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2009, Simon Schampijer wrote: Oh, awesome - sounds like a great idea to me. :-) One little thing I am worried in general, is to make sure that people perceive Sugar Labs now as something independent of OLPC, but that we share some of the goals. I think we want to make sure that Sugar Labs gets it's own brand. But my worries might not be valid in this particular case, we can use big signs that explains the diffs I guess :) yeah, guess that would work. We could also put Sugarlabs marketing material on one side, and OLPC Deutschland e.V. material on the other :) (And then mix the people... :) Do you know already how we need to ask for the booth and the details regarding that? The same people as the papers.. Another question, do you know someone we could ask for paper deadline submission extension - I emailed pap...@linuxtag.org yesterday but got no reply. A direct contact might be easier. I have Wolfgang Drotshcmann and Marko Jung from last year, maybe I should bug them. You should :) regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Linuxtag 2009 - how do we want to promote Sugar Labs
Hi, On Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2009, Simon Schampijer wrote: yeah, guess that would work. We could also put Sugarlabs marketing material on one side, and OLPC Deutschland e.V. material on the other :) (And then mix the people... :) Sounds good. so far people on olpc...@l.l.o also liked the idea :) So OLPC Germany you did not apply for a booth yet, right? nope, just informally during the beer event at fosdem, IIRC ;-) I parsed a bit at the info at the page and it looks like you have to pay for the booth. Is that right - do you recall infos from last year? that's (or was) not the case for community projects, which both our projects are :) regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] activites known not to either work at all o r not on?certin platforms
Hi Jonas, please relax... On Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2009, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: If someone (me[1]) reorganize the packaging routines as already drafted at the Alioth OLPC list, then it is not sponsoring but ordinary package maintainance. again, to clarify what I ment: If someone reorganizes the packaging routines as already drafted on the Alioth OLPC list, then I will gladly sponsor those uploads to Debian experimental. (Looking at https://alioth.debian.org/projects/debian-olpc/ there are not many who are active and can sponsor uploads.) regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Developer gathering in Trondheim, Norway - January 2009
Hi, On Mittwoch, 28. Januar 2009, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: Yeah, perhaps we can get something done at FOSDEM? Friday afternoon? Sounds like a plan :) I will arrive Friday noon in Brussels and have the afternoon free for sugar... is there a space to meet and hack now? We'll have more meetings coming up this year, so if you cant make this one, maybe the next? Sure, keep me posted. Will do. regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Developer gathering in Trondheim, Norway - January 2009
Hi, this is one of these mails which stayed in I should reply to this too long... :/ On Freitag, 5. Dezember 2008, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: So your, or any other sugar developers, attendency would certainly be welcome. Ok, how could I help? Any subject I could talk about? Workshops to prepare? I guess its too late now, the meeting will start in 4 days and you probably will not be able to make it anymore? That said, I think two things would be most useful: a.) help with deciding and polishing the 0.82 sugar stuff we have for lenny b.) give a presentation about what sugar is (teacher centric) and how to write applications for it (beginner programmer centric). We'll have more meetings coming up this year, so if you cant make this one, maybe the next? regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Developer gathering in Trondheim, Norway - January 2009
Hi Martin, On Montag, 26. Januar 2009, Martin Sevior wrote: One of the things that Debian needs to do to package sugar is to distribute AbiWord as libAbiword with a small binary wrapper. This has been done for Fedora. We've told the AbiWord Debian packager about this but it hasn't happened yet. Did you file a bug? regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Developer gathering in Trondheim, Norway - January 2009
Hi Tomeu, On Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:33, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: I could attend if there was interest in having a Sugar hacker there. Do you have any plans that include Sugar somehow? We have a sugar-desktop profile which in theory allows to install a sugar desktop. (In practice its broken, because sugar in Debian is broken.) (Debian Edu mostly differs from Debian that the installation media offers four different kind of profiles to be installed, of which some can be merged: - main-server - workstation - thin-client-server - standalone This is in normal mode. In expert mode you get two additional profiles: - barebone - sugar workstation ) So your, or any other sugar developers, attendency would certainly be welcome. regards, Holger pgpMp9ZeVsCYQ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] FOSDEM 2009: Brussels 7-8 Feb
Hi, On Tuesday 02 December 2008 02:03, Christoph Derndorfer wrote: Daniel mentioned FOSDEM during our weekend meeting in Brussels and we thought it might be a good opportunity to have a European OLPC / Sugar grassroots meeting either in the two days before or after the actual event. I'll definitly be at FOSDEM and definitly would be very interested to join an OLPC meeting before or after FOSDEM, as it will be a quite busy weekend for me (doing video stuff for the Debian devroom again). To be able to book flights well in advance I'd appreciate if such a thing could be decided ASAP :) regards, Holger pgpTsvypujUzD.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Developer gathering in Trondheim, Norway - January 2009
Hi, On Saturday 29 November 2008 21:12, Walter Bender wrote: Alas, I will be in Tasmania... couldn't get much farther from Trondheim if I tried. Heh. Enjoy LCA! Debian Edu has many regular developer meetings, there is one in December, there was one in October and I'm sure the one in January is just one of many in 2009. Currently Debian Lenny consists of 12259 sources packages, Debian Edu differs in _4_, so counted the number of source package, Debian Edu is 99.967% Debian :-) Debian Edu has other installation CDs and installs a diffferent default set of packages, and there is a different user and developer community, but basically it is just Debian. regards, Holger P.S.: Due to historic reasons, the project is called Skolelinux / Debian Edu, where you can read the slash as a slash or as an or :) pgpKvxOxx62NS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] sugar and co
Hi, sugar-calculate-activity sugar-chat-activity sugar-memorize-activity sugar-pippy-activity sugar-web-activity sugar-sharingtest-activity are all effected by serious bugs which can either be fixed via t-p-u or with new upstream versions via unstable. (Or via removals of the affected packages.) Personally I think 0.81 (=what's in lenny currently) is not worth releasing with, as every sugar deployment in the world (mostly ~1mio XO laptops, but there are other deployments on other hardware coming) now has switched to 0.82 and 0.81 is also not supported upstream anymore. OTOH, sugar has no reverse depends (well, except education-desktop-sugar from Debian Edu, we/I will handle that, whatever the outcome will be), is optional and is also pretty new and pretty outstanding in its field of use, so I would really appreciate if you could make a huge exception and let sugar 0.82 in. But the point is, broken sugar packages cannot effect anything else than sugar. So, I kindly ask you to not call me crazy (you'll probably do so anyway) and unblock those packages. I'd understand if you'd say no for consistency reasons (there are lots of packages which cannot effect others...) but for the sake of the children of the world I'm asking. Sugar is truely something new and exciting and it would be great, if Debian lenny would be a first class basis for it. regards, Holger sugar-presence-service sugar-artwork sugar-toolkit sugar-datastore dont have RC bugs but are in the same boat. pgpiEDujCmWOj.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar on Ubuntu - Summary
Hi, additionaly to what Bert said: to summarize _my understanding_ again: there is source, there is just no ascii representation of the source / you cannot compile the source to binaries. Because the source comes as blobs (being the VM in it's state), which can be edited inside the virtual machine it represents. In theory squeak can be bootstrapped, in practice not. (Hence, there is a chicken and egg problem. (For non squeak developers. Squeak developers are used to this and happy about it.)) regards, Holger pgp7kG050IpWM.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar on Ubuntu - Summary
Hi, On Friday 07 November 2008 14:39, David Van Assche wrote: the only option seems to seperate squeak from sugar, if sugar is to get into main or universe. thats not an option, but it's the (fine) status quo. there are these things called packages... regards, Holger, who also appreciates not to be cc:ed :) pgpLjM9NP80dg.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] squeak/etoys accepted as free software... (was Re: Sugar on Ubuntu - Summary
Hi, thanks from me to Jecel for clarifications too! On Friday 07 November 2008 19:45, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: The Squeak image Etoys (the only one currently packaged officially for Debian) is in non-free due to ftpmasters judging it not possible for the security team to maintain throughout the (multiple year long) lifespan of a Debian release. IIRC/IIUC this is one aspect why the ftpmasters didnt accept it in main. More generally said, (IIRC) it's because the impossibility to bootstrap etoys. Even though the etoys developers don't do it and the stateful VM (or rather patches to it) is/are the prefered form of modification. And while I dont agree with the position they are taking (should I say, anymore..) I can understand why they do: because it makes sense and (probably also) because this is like it always was: traditional software has to have the ability to be bootstrapped or build. Squeak is special in this case and I dare to say new. (I know it was started in the 70ties :) But not all people do.) So my planned approach to get it into main in the long run, is to start a general discussion in Debian about this kind of software, thus stopping to special case squeak. But as you might know (or not), Debian is in the process of releasing Lenny atm, so I don't think it's a good time to start philosophical discussions now. We should rather concentrate on fixing those last bugs and getting Lenny out, so that we concentrate again on fancy new stuff! :) I was also happy to read Greg Dekoenigsberg mail in this tread and wonder the same: whether there are any lessons that can be shared between Fedora and Debian maintainers in this case. And how. My approach is to create a comprehensible document (quoted by Jonas in this thread) explaining the issue(s). regards, Holger pgpfdQDXHIY9s.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] etoys in Debian main (Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu)
Hi, On Thursday 06 November 2008 04:48, Walter Bender wrote: As of this summer, all of the code contained in our Squeak Etoys version 4.0 is covered by either the Apache 2.0 or MIT Licenses. Yup. Even for etoys 3.0.1916+svn132-2 licencing or copyright issues are _not_ the reason why its in Debians non-free repository and not in main. The reason is, that the Debian ftpmasters are (AIUI) of the opinion that etoys doesn't build from sources, as its shipped as binary objects, to make a long story short. (It has roughly been bootstrapped 14 times since 1977 or so.) It's on my todo list to file a proper bug in Debian about this soon. Actually, it's not really on my todo list, but _one out of two_ remaining emails from the time I used my inbox as a todo list... ;-) I plan to file this bug by preparing it on a wiki page (!) as I would like to presend the whole situation comprehensible and to the point. I will announce that page before I submit this bug here, stay tuned, but it probably will take some time still. If someone wants to start such a wiki page now, please go ahead. regards, Holger pgplercsNfzcV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
