Re: [Sugar-devel] Name for Sugar Packages
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 00:24, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: Hi all, Just wondering, how to name Sugar Packages. What are you meaning by Sugar Packages? Is there a wiki page or something I have missed? The reasons to not reuse package name - it is not regular (GNU/Linux distributions) packages, because: * primal deploying model is decentralized (via 0install) not centralized which is the core point of regular distros * sugar packages still could be represented as regular packages to support centralized sugar distributions but in that case it will look like tunneling, e.g., ssh tunnels via http * in most cases, packages will contain results of doer experiments, e.g., not fully tested/QAed/etc stuff like packages in regular distributions (at least in stable distro releases) * in most cases, package maintainers will be their developers because there is no need in any packaging work except supporting an analog of activity.info file (for activities) The reasons to not reuse activity name: * packages might contain not only activities but libraries, other (not)well distro packaged dependencies, .xol content or sugar itself * it is about deploying content not about its quality The reasons to not reuse bundle name: * distribution will happen not only (or, usually, not at all) via bundles (e.g. .xo bundles) And the last but not least :) reason, it would be really cool to have special name for sugar packages, e.g, Ruby has gems, Python has eggs. Just wanted to mention that I have heard several times of the difficulty that newcomers have with these names inspired in sugar puns. For us that have been thinking about Sugar every day for several years now it may seem convenient (and fun) to have very distinctive names but for the rest we are making it more difficult to think of Sugar. I don't think we really need to be so afraid of using names that are already being used in other contexts and that we can trust users to be ready to discover any Sugar specificities. Just consider how these alternatives sound to someone who is just starting to discover what Sugar is: Glucose - core modules Fructose - core or demonstration activities ASLO - activities directory IAEP - sugar-general, sugar-discussion, ... etc. Regards, Tomeu -- Aleksey ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Name for Sugar Packages
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 00:24, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: Hi all, Just wondering, how to name Sugar Packages. What are you meaning by Sugar Packages? Is there a wiki page or something I have missed? I'm collecting info on [1] but it is still in preliminary stage... I'm experimenting with local OBS[2] instance, after getting some useful results it will be available on refinery.sl.o for trying. After that, I'm planing to share my vision in more formal form with requesting new SL Team - Refinery Team. [1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Zero_Sugar [2] https://build.opensuse.org/ The reasons to not reuse package name - it is not regular (GNU/Linux distributions) packages, because: * primal deploying model is decentralized (via 0install) not centralized which is the core point of regular distros * sugar packages still could be represented as regular packages to support centralized sugar distributions but in that case it will look like tunneling, e.g., ssh tunnels via http * in most cases, packages will contain results of doer experiments, e.g., not fully tested/QAed/etc stuff like packages in regular distributions (at least in stable distro releases) * in most cases, package maintainers will be their developers because there is no need in any packaging work except supporting an analog of activity.info file (for activities) The reasons to not reuse activity name: * packages might contain not only activities but libraries, other (not)well distro packaged dependencies, .xol content or sugar itself * it is about deploying content not about its quality The reasons to not reuse bundle name: * distribution will happen not only (or, usually, not at all) via bundles (e.g. .xo bundles) And the last but not least :) reason, it would be really cool to have special name for sugar packages, e.g, Ruby has gems, Python has eggs. Just wanted to mention that I have heard several times of the difficulty that newcomers have with these names inspired in sugar puns. For us that have been thinking about Sugar every day for several years now it may seem convenient (and fun) to have very distinctive names but for the rest we are making it more difficult to think of Sugar. I don't think we really need to be so afraid of using names that are already being used in other contexts and that we can trust users to be ready to discover any Sugar specificities. Just consider how these alternatives sound to someone who is just starting to discover what Sugar is: Glucose - core modules Fructose - core or demonstration activities ASLO - activities directory IAEP - sugar-general, sugar-discussion, ... etc. Well, it depends on how someone is seeing Sugar, for me, it is a Game (nobody invented a method to educate better then playing). Special sugar names is a part of this game. -- Aleksey ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
[Sugar-devel] Name for Sugar Packages
Hi all, Just wondering, how to name Sugar Packages. The reasons to not reuse package name - it is not regular (GNU/Linux distributions) packages, because: * primal deploying model is decentralized (via 0install) not centralized which is the core point of regular distros * sugar packages still could be represented as regular packages to support centralized sugar distributions but in that case it will look like tunneling, e.g., ssh tunnels via http * in most cases, packages will contain results of doer experiments, e.g., not fully tested/QAed/etc stuff like packages in regular distributions (at least in stable distro releases) * in most cases, package maintainers will be their developers because there is no need in any packaging work except supporting an analog of activity.info file (for activities) The reasons to not reuse activity name: * packages might contain not only activities but libraries, other (not)well distro packaged dependencies, .xol content or sugar itself * it is about deploying content not about its quality The reasons to not reuse bundle name: * distribution will happen not only (or, usually, not at all) via bundles (e.g. .xo bundles) And the last but not least :) reason, it would be really cool to have special name for sugar packages, e.g, Ruby has gems, Python has eggs. -- Aleksey ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Name for Sugar Packages
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: Hi all, Just wondering, how to name Sugar Packages. The reasons to not reuse package name - it is not regular (GNU/Linux distributions) packages, because: * primal deploying model is decentralized (via 0install) not centralized which is the core point of regular distros * sugar packages still could be represented as regular packages to support centralized sugar distributions but in that case it will look like tunneling, e.g., ssh tunnels via http * in most cases, packages will contain results of doer experiments, e.g., not fully tested/QAed/etc stuff like packages in regular distributions (at least in stable distro releases) * in most cases, package maintainers will be their developers because there is no need in any packaging work except supporting an analog of activity.info file (for activities) The reasons to not reuse activity name: * packages might contain not only activities but libraries, other (not)well distro packaged dependencies, .xol content or sugar itself * it is about deploying content not about its quality The reasons to not reuse bundle name: * distribution will happen not only (or, usually, not at all) via bundles (e.g. .xo bundles) And the last but not least :) reason, it would be really cool to have special name for sugar packages, e.g, Ruby has gems, Python has eggs. -- Aleksey Sugar cubes come to mind. The are prepared, bite-size or cup-size packages of compressed sugar grains. --Fred ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Name for Sugar Packages
On 31 Jul 2010, at 23:24, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: Hi all, Just wondering, how to name Sugar Packages. The reasons to not reuse package name - it is not regular (GNU/Linux distributions) packages, because: * primal deploying model is decentralized (via 0install) not centralized which is the core point of regular distros * sugar packages still could be represented as regular packages to support centralized sugar distributions but in that case it will look like tunneling, e.g., ssh tunnels via http * in most cases, packages will contain results of doer experiments, e.g., not fully tested/QAed/etc stuff like packages in regular distributions (at least in stable distro releases) * in most cases, package maintainers will be their developers because there is no need in any packaging work except supporting an analog of activity.info file (for activities) The reasons to not reuse activity name: * packages might contain not only activities but libraries, other (not)well distro packaged dependencies, .xol content or sugar itself * it is about deploying content not about its quality The reasons to not reuse bundle name: * distribution will happen not only (or, usually, not at all) via bundles (e.g. .xo bundles) Not sure I grasp the above. And the last but not least :) reason, it would be really cool to have special name for sugar packages, e.g, Ruby has gems, Python has eggs. But if it's a name game, I can't avoid suggesting Sugar cube ;) Regards, --Gary -- Aleksey ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Name for Sugar Packages
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 01:00:04AM +0100, Gary Martin wrote: On 31 Jul 2010, at 23:24, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: Hi all, Just wondering, how to name Sugar Packages. The reasons to not reuse package name - it is not regular (GNU/Linux distributions) packages, because: * primal deploying model is decentralized (via 0install) not centralized which is the core point of regular distros * sugar packages still could be represented as regular packages to support centralized sugar distributions but in that case it will look like tunneling, e.g., ssh tunnels via http * in most cases, packages will contain results of doer experiments, e.g., not fully tested/QAed/etc stuff like packages in regular distributions (at least in stable distro releases) * in most cases, package maintainers will be their developers because there is no need in any packaging work except supporting an analog of activity.info file (for activities) The reasons to not reuse activity name: * packages might contain not only activities but libraries, other (not)well distro packaged dependencies, .xol content or sugar itself * it is about deploying content not about its quality The reasons to not reuse bundle name: * distribution will happen not only (or, usually, not at all) via bundles (e.g. .xo bundles) Not sure I grasp the above. And the last but not least :) reason, it would be really cool to have special name for sugar packages, e.g, Ruby has gems, Python has eggs. But if it's a name game, you got it :) I can't avoid suggesting Sugar cube ;) so, 3:0 for cubes.. I guess the place where these cubes are produced could be named refinery.sugarlabs.org -- Aleksey ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Name for Sugar Packages
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 01:00:04AM +0100, Gary Martin wrote:
On 31 Jul 2010, at 23:24, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote:
{...}
so, 3:0 for cubes..
Sugar cubes nicely suggest a regular, ordered volume that would hold
packed content, which might sweeten your cup of brew.
I guess the place where these cubes are produced could be named
refinery.sugarlabs.org
refinery nicely suggests refinement or a place where one may find raw
materials, intermediate refinements, and the sweetest refinements or
finished products, and the tools or equipment needed for the process.
--Fred
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Name for Sugar Packages
On 1 August 2010 12:11, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: so, 3:0 for cubes.. I guess the place where these cubes are produced could be named refinery.sugarlabs.org +1 ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
