[Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100 features on Sugar 0.102 build

Thomas C. Gilliard satellitgo at gmail.com
Tue Sep 2 17:09:00 EDT 2014

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).
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 <me at jvonau.ca> escribió:
>>     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 "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 at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140902/cab635f7/attachment.html>

More information about the Devel mailing list