On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> By the way I think libxklavier 5.4 is not even in Fedora 19 but it's
> required for the keyboard control panel section to work.
I've just checked this but presumably by 5.4 you mean an unreleased
version or SVC head because there is no 5.4
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 19:48 -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Ruben Rodríguez
> wrote:
>
> > Also, there are some bits of code in both Sugar and the activities
> > that assume to be running on Fedora, or even on an XO, and those need
> > cleaning.
>
> Be nice to know
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:00:06AM +0200, Ruben Rodríguez wrote:
> 2013/10/8 Walter Bender :
> > Be nice to know about these so we can fix them.
>
> Sure thing! We just finished with the first leg of the project and the
> resultant image is getting tested now, so soon I'll start sending
> patches.
2013/10/8 Walter Bender :
> Be nice to know about these so we can fix them.
Sure thing! We just finished with the first leg of the project and the
resultant image is getting tested now, so soon I'll start sending
patches. There are usually small things, like scripts written in bash
(ubuntu uses d
2013/10/7 Gonzalo Odiard :
> I agree. Have Sugar working on Ubuntu would be great, but would be mainly:
> * Solve dependencies in ubuntu (update/fix packages)
> * Make Sugar work with other dependencies when is not possible.
>
> In the first case, upstream is Ubuntu, in the second case, upstream is
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Ruben Rodríguez
wrote:
> Also, there are some bits of code in both Sugar and the activities
> that assume to be running on Fedora, or even on an XO, and those need
> cleaning.
Be nice to know about these so we can fix them.
thx
>
>
> --
> Rubén Rodríguez
> Activi
2013/10/7 Daniel Narvaez :
>
> I would like to understand better what you mean with porting. It should just
> be matter of writing package specs (or really fixing the existing ones...),
> no?
Mainly, but since we work with Ubuntu LTS for the deployment's benefit
we had to backport patches into go
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
>> participation in development has been confined to those who take the
>> trouble to visit a web site.
>>
>> (The review
On 8 October 2013 01:07, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
> This actually is kind of what I meant (and perhaps should be a separate
> thread).
>
To simplify things I will only answer about the 0.100 release cycle. Things
have changed a lot anyway and it's probably not worth focusing on the past.
> My u
My 2 cents:
Since the switch to github, we've have a much better turn-around on
reviews and we've attacked new reviewers. I think those data speak for
themselves. As Daniel said, we welcome help further shaping the
process.
regards.
-walter
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Manuel Quiñones wrote
Hi,
I think we should certainly *not* branch until January/Australia release.
If anyone disagrees now it's the time to speak up.
Really, looking forward I think we should switch to continuous development
and never branch again. But that certainly will require more discussion.
On 8 October 2013
If a branch is going to be declared, we will need to address it in
Pootle as well. Please advise.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 8 October 2013 00:43, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez
>> wrote:
>> > It sounds like it might b
On 8 October 2013 00:43, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez
> wrote:
> > It sounds like it might be an opportunity for upstream to get feedback
> from
> > real users, which we need desperately. So I think it would be a good
> idea to
> > "refocus" 0.100 around
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> It sounds like it might be an opportunity for upstream to get feedback from
> real users, which we need desperately. So I think it would be a good idea to
> "refocus" 0.100 around this deployment. So
>
> 1 Stay in bugfixing mode until January
On 8 October 2013 00:22, James Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> > Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar"
> > seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into
> > it.
> >
> > There aren't multiple grou
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> No, I never had a koji user.
>
> How can I have one?
Become a Fedora packager.
Peter
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:10 PM, James Cameron wrote:
> I agree with Martin on the odd directions Ubuntu is exhibiting; it may
> be safer to target Debian instead, from which support for Ubuntu will
> generally follow.
>
> (On the other hand, I lack evidence to agree with claims about the
> stabil
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar"
> seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into
> it.
>
> There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing
> sugar on their own
On 8 October 2013 00:08, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> James, Sam, I see this as a question of taste.
>
Exactly.
The sooner people understand that, the sooner we will stop having
discussions about the review process over and over :)
___
Sugar-devel mailing
2013/10/7 James Cameron :
> Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>> Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > Daniel wrote:
>> > > Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > > > Samuel Wrote:
>> > > > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no
>> > > > longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone
>> > > >
Can I have a tar file for this release please?
Peter
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Sugar Labs Activities
wrote:
> Activity Homepage:
> http://activities.sugarlabs.org/addon/4032
>
> Sugar Platform:
> 0.98 - 0.100
>
> Download Now:
> http://activities.sugarlabs.org/downloads/file/28766/image_v
On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron wrote:
> I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
> participation in development has been confined to those who take the
> trouble to visit a web site.
>
> (The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list).
>
> S
Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > Daniel wrote:
> > > Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > > > Samuel Wrote:
> > > > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no
> > > > longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone
> > > > seems to be developing their own ve
I agree with Martin on the odd directions Ubuntu is exhibiting; it may
be safer to target Debian instead, from which support for Ubuntu will
generally follow.
(On the other hand, I lack evidence to agree with claims about the
stability or direction of Fedora. So few people I know use it.)
--
Ja
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, David Farning
wrote:
> As a more incremental approach, Activity Central will continue our
> deployment-centric work by porting Dextrose to Ubuntu.
>From a "deploy to XOs PoV" that sounds like a ton of work. You'll
grind against a lot of little problems.
Fedora is
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 7 October 2013 18:41, David Farning wrote:
>
>> Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these
>> discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for
>> use on hardware not sold by the Association?
>>
>> Pha
On Monday, 7 October 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no longer
> publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be
> developing their own version of Sugar.
>
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind
In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no longer
publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be
developing their own version of Sugar.
>
> Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of change (and
> we have not been reviewing most patches o
2013/10/7 Daniel Narvaez :
> What about skipping less files whose first line is exactly
>
> // recess: ignore
>
> Adding a list of files to ignore in sugar-build would suck a bit.
Fine, Daniel. And yeah the "//" is the proper way to comment in LESS.
--
.. manuq ..
__
On 7 October 2013 18:41, David Farning wrote:
> Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these
> discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for
> use on hardware not sold by the Association?
>
> Phase one has been a poof of concept as seen at
> http://wiki.suga
On 7 October 2013 19:24, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
>
>
>- Updating the Sugar release in Ubuntu sounds like something everyone
>could benefit from, not just Dextrose users. Is there any reason not to
>base most of this work starting with upstream Sugar & existing Ubuntu
>packages?
>
What about skipping less files whose first line is exactly
// recess: ignore
Adding a list of files to ignore in sugar-build would suck a bit.
On 7 October 2013 19:26, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> 2013/10/7 Daniel Narvaez :
> > On 7 October 2013 18:59, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> >>
> >> 2013/10/7
2013/10/7 Daniel Narvaez :
> On 7 October 2013 18:59, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
>>
>> 2013/10/7 Daniel Narvaez :
>> >
>> > http://buildbot.sugarlabs.org/builders/quick/builds/265/steps/shell_2/logs/log
>>
>> Oh, we have to change the check. Now sugar.less is imported by
>> sugar-*.less, so those are
Disclaimer: These are my personal views, and are not the official views of
OLPC.
- It should be fine to discuss anything Sugar-related on the
sugarlabs.org development lists. Sugar Labs does not use any OLPC
hosting services, and is an independent group as part of the Software
Freedo
Hello,
I setup a buildbot instance to build the packages daily, using the XO as a
build slave for arm
http://sugarlabs.org:8011/waterfall
https://github.com/dnarvaez/archbot
You can pull them by adding this to your /etc/pacman.conf
[sugar]
SigLevel = Never
Server = http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvae
2013/10/7 Daniel Narvaez :
> http://buildbot.sugarlabs.org/builders/quick/builds/265/steps/shell_2/logs/log
Oh, we have to change the check. Now sugar.less is imported by
sugar-*.less, so those are the ones we need to check.
--
.. manuq ..
___
Sugar-d
On 7 October 2013 18:59, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> 2013/10/7 Daniel Narvaez :
> >
> http://buildbot.sugarlabs.org/builders/quick/builds/265/steps/shell_2/logs/log
>
> Oh, we have to change the check. Now sugar.less is imported by
> sugar-*.less, so those are the ones we need to check.
>
Will rec
We have the Uruguay Butia robot, a couple of LEGO WeDo kits and a
Mindstorms NXT box that we can provide. Any takers on running a
session on robotics at the OLPC SF Community Summit 2013?
http://www.olpcsf.org/CommunitySummit2013/proposal
cheers,
Sameer
--
Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Professor, Informat
Activity Homepage:
http://activities.sugarlabs.org/addon/4696
Sugar Platform:
0.100 - 0.100
Download Now:
http://activities.sugarlabs.org/downloads/file/28778/gears-5.xo
Release notes:
Forgot to add the new CSS files
Sugar Labs Activities
http://activities.sugarlabs.org
__
As a data point for other decision makers and a follow up to some of
the recent threads on the future of Sugar, I would like to share
Activity Central's Sugar priorities for the next six months.
Activity Central supports the recent HTML5 + JS work that is going
into sugar .100. It has the potentia
http://buildbot.sugarlabs.org/builders/quick/builds/265/steps/shell_2/logs/log
--
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Just a heads up that I made a slight change to
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Template:Activity-oneline
Rather than linking to non-existent activity pages in wiki.laptop.org,
I have it link to wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/
I don't think this impacts the updater, just the display of the pages
in th
On 7 October 2013 05:14, Sebastian Silva wrote:
> El 05/10/13 18:59, Daniel Narvaez escribió:
>
> * AUR -git packages for the Sugar core and the browse activity. They
>> makes it pretty easy to install the very latest sugar. (I tested them on my
>> laptop, not on the XO yet).
>>
>
> Nice to hear
43 matches
Mail list logo
