[Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build
sebastian at fuentelibre.org
Tue Sep 2 16:49:11 EDT 2014
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.
- 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.
El mar, 2 de sep 2014 a las 2:46 PM, Jerry Vonau <me at jvonau.ca>
>> On September 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM Sebastian Silva
>> <sebastian at 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
>> packages should come with all the bells and whistles included, and
>> any deployment wants to chop and censor functionality, then it
>> be their problem, not the other way around.
> So much for being "volunteer" deployment friendly, now you have to
> sugar" at the image creation time, patching out/in what you want in
> image, in place of just not installing certain functionality in the
> place. Are you suggesting that datastore, toolkit(s), base, be
> 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
> in the first place, for the needs of the deployment. We listened to
> the deployment wanted to do and worked towards that goal.
> I guess that this is just another way to ensure further work is only
> by a sugarlabs/olpc associate.
> Just my 3 cents,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel