Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Debian complaints

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Hi Tony and others,

Excerpts from Tony Anderson's message of December 17, 2016 9:05 pm:
It appears that the Debian repository, if updated for 0.110 and then 
passing the Debian test procedures should be the proper basis for a 
Raspbian and Ubuntu release.


Thanks for your interest in the Debian packaging of Sugar!

Sugar 0.110 libraries, and up-to-date activities Browse, Chat, Image
Viewer, Jukebox, Log, Pippy, Read, Terminal, and Write, were all
recently prepared and if all goes well will be part of upcoming Debian
release (which will enter "freeze" state in few weeks and might be ready
some time in Spring).


I would hope our community has some one with the skills and 
determination to take this on.


Anyone interested in helping out with packaging Sugar for Debian is most
welcome. You do *not* need to be an official Debian developer (we only
need some of those in our team to formally release our work, and I can
do that).

More information, both on how to follow the Debian progress more closely
and how to join, is at https://wiki.debian.org/Sugar

I see no need for tighter coordination between Debian and Sugarlabs for
this: Sugarlabs does a fine job publishing its code and announcing
releases.  What is needed is people able and interested in running
Debian and testing the packages - and people helping create packages - for
Debian.

Regards,

- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


pgpqdsGeLHvfc.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] [SLOBS] Debian complaints

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Walter

Of course, we need qualified volunteers to undertake the task. So far, 
our release managers have provided support for osbuild but have not 
undertaken to provide a release intended for adoption by a general user 
or by a institutional deployment. The Sugar Labs web site offers 
releases for many platforms, but the email discussion shows that none of 
these can really be considered a stable, tested release.


It appears that the Debian repository, if updated for 0.110 and then 
passing the Debian test procedures should be the proper basis for a 
Raspbian and Ubuntu release.


I would hope our community has some one with the skills and 
determination to take this on.


Tony

On 12/17/2016 09:34 PM, Walter Bender wrote:

Tony,

I cannot separate the desire to have an easy install on Debian from 
the work needed to achieve that goal. Hence my asking that we expand 
this discussion to include those who might be able to help us do that 
work.


-walter

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Tony Anderson > wrote:


Hi, Walter

We again seem to have a problem in communication. My concern is
not to solve a specific problem. My concern is to leverage this
Debian process to help
Sugar Labs offer an effective release of Sugar that can become a
viable alternative for educators to implement. This can not
require specific technical knowledge such as the sugar developers
have, but the ability to install Sugar on an ordinary laptop. This
is handled by Libre Office. I can install Libre Office on an Xo
with the following script:

echo 'install libreoffice'
cd libreoffice
sudo rpm -Uvh *.rpm
cd $here

where libreoffice is a directory containing the Libre Office rpms.
This requires no access to the internet nor any special technical
skills. The
overall script is

cd /run/media/olpc/xo175
bash xo-custom

where xo175 is the label of the USB drive.

Why can't we have something as simple for Sugar? Debian seems to
be spending some effort to package Sugar in their repository. Why
can't we expend
a little effort so that Sugar can be installed by dpkg -i sugar?

I addressed this to SLOBS because I think this is a Sugar Labs
issue, not a technical one.

Tony


On 12/17/2016 04:50 PM, Walter Bender wrote:

None of this seems like it would be difficult to resolve. We need
to find someone who is in the debian world to jump in. Can you
cross post to sugar-devel?

thx

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Tony Anderson
> wrote:

I continue to get messages like this - I suspect because I
signed up for pkg-sugar-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
. However,
there doesn't appear to be anyone from the Sugar community
involved.

Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:10:30 +0100
Source: sugar-imageviewer-activity
Binary: sugar-imageviewer-activity
Architecture: source all
Version: 62-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Sugar
Team>
Changed-By: Jonas Smedegaard>
Description:
 sugar-imageviewer-activity - Sugar Learning Platform - image
viewing activity
Changes:
 sugar-imageviewer-activity (62-3) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Update copyright info:
 + Update URLs to reflect new Github home.
 + Extend coverage for Debian packaging.
   * Declare compliance with Debian Policy 3.9.8.
   * Fix broken path in desktop file.
   * Have git-buildpackage filter any .git* file.
   * Modernize CDBS use:
 + Generalize resolving build-dependency on python.
 + Build-depend on licensecheck (not devscripts).

Is there anyone who cares? Since Sugar Labs does not make a
Debian release of Sugar, perhaps we should tell Debian to
drop Sugar and forget about it.
Naturally, we would be turning our back on the opportunity to
create a Sugar release for Debian which would install on
Ubuntu and Raspbian and. potentially, Windows 10.
___
SLOBs mailing list
sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs





-- 
Walter Bender

Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org






--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org



___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)