[Pkg-sugar-devel] Why track activity version numbers?

Sat Apr 22 03:45:25 UTC 2017

I'm fine with the Debian package name "sucrose", and make no proposal
to change it.

On the other hand, discovery in a package list search is problematic.

A "sugar-desktop" package may be helpful for listing with other
"desktop environments".  There was an "education-desktop-sugar"
package in Wheezy.

I don't see how the rest of this discussion benefits Debian, so I'll
withdraw from it here.  It's off-topic for Debian.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 09:53:48AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> I don't see how you speak for Sugar or Sugar Labs.
> 
> The definition of admin was clear - a person at the deployment. It
> did not refer to you in your role as a paid employee of OLPC. Read
> Jonas definitions.
> 
> I am still trying to get accurate information on the state of Sugar
> in debian. Currently Ubuntu 16.04 does not offer 0.110 but Ubuntu
> 17.04 is claimed to do so.
> What does sudo apt intall sucrose use? Is it the debian release or
> something separate provided by Canonical? As I understand it, Jonas
> says it is available in debian and you say it is not.
> 
> Sucrose and fructose may have meaning to some members of the Sugar
> community, but how is a user to know that sucrose is sugar (let
> alone fructose, whatever that is). AFAIK, these terms were
> introduced by AC, which is long gone. For example, what is the
> connection between the 'development environment' and sucrose or
> fructose?
> 
> Do you have anything to support the claim that users install 0.82 vs
> 0.110 based on pedagogical research? In my experience, the version
> installed is the one that came with the XO.
> 
> According to Jonas' definitions, the list of protected activities is
> set by the distro and can be modified by the deployer or admin.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I would rather distros of the Sugar desktop
> should be based on the Sugar release (0.110, etc.). This would give
> users confidence in the behavior of the desktop. This is the
> expectation of users of most activities such as gimp, Libre Office,
> etc.
> 
> Incidentally, the system is quite usable without Browse for
> deployments with no school server or no internet access. It is also
> quite usable without the Terminal activity since the shell is
> accessible through Gnome or through alt-ctrl+function key.
> 
> In spite of the heat, I believe this discussion is helping clarify
> many issues for me.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tony
> 
> On 04/22/2017 09:21 AM, James Cameron wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 07:47:29AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> >>Hi, Jonas
> >>
> >>Thanks for the information about how to install the debian
> >>'sucrose'. I need to give that a try.
> >You should wait for the next Debian release, as Sugar is not in the
> >current stable release of Debian.
> >
> >>Consider this example:
> >>
> >>   author: Sugar coders (and GNU coders, Linux coders, etc.)
> >>   publisher: Sugarlabs via ASLO (and kernel.org, Github, etc.)
> >>   maintainer: James Cameron (and Redhat maintainers, etc.)
> >>   distro: OLPC
> >>   deployer: OLE Nepal team
> >>   admin: Parents, friends and siblings of children at Tundikhel
> >>   user: Children at Tundikhel
> >>
> >>My guess is that in this case there is no admin. Generally OLE Nepal
> >>sends a team to the site to do the deployment.
> >>
> >>James Cameron describes Sugar on the XO as the OLPC OS. These are
> >>released by him on [1]www.laptop.org. The current OLPC OS is
> >>13.2.8. Generally, there is no maintenance. The changes come in new
> >>releases.
> >That's a load of bollocks.
> >
> >Software maintenance is paid for and ongoing, and is delivered by
> >updated packages which are collected by a system update in some
> >deployments, or Sugar's software update in others.
> >
> >If you only notice new releases of OLPC OS, then you've missed
> >everything else that happens.
> >
> >Please, don't try to speak for me.  You'll get it wrong.
> >
> >Software maintenance also generates pull requests and commits to Sugar
> >Labs repositories, and so from a Debian perspective this appears as
> >useful upstream activity.
> >
> >>Fortunately, the system is mature enough that there are no critical
> >>bugs that prevent use of the system.  Also, in most deployments such
> >>as those by OLE Nepal, there is no internet access so many security
> >>concerns are moot.
> >Not so, in most deployments (by country quantity and unit quantity),
> >there is internet access, and security concerns are critical.
> >
> >>So the above should probably be:
> >>
> >>author: members of the Sugar and open source community
> >>publisher: [2]www.laptop.org (James Cameron)
> >>maintainer: none in the sense you describe (note activities are independent of
> >>the system and are released to ASLO asynchronously).
> >>distro: de facto [3]www.laptop.org (OLPC) but should be Sugar Labs (debian,
> >>Ubuntu, Raspbian, etc.)
> >>deployer: OLE Nepal team
> >>user: children and teachers
> >>
> >>My real concern is that the Sugar desktop as installed have an
> >>identifiable version number (in Sugar it is shown in 'About My
> >>Computer' in 'MySettings').  Version 0.110 of Sugar should be the
> >>same in all distros of Sugar.
> >I disagree.  Deployers choose different versions of Sugar based on
> >pedogogical research, and this research is costly to repeat.
> >
> >>The name sucrose is confusing and
> >>appears for historical reasons no longer applicable,
> >No, it remains applicable; it is the name given to the base Sugar
> >software environment plus the set of demonstration activities known as
> >Fructose.  Well-defined in the Glossary and Taxonomy on the Sugar
> >Wiki, and the terms are still in use.
> >
> >>"I understand how admins and users perceive everything upstream as
> >>"an integral part of Sugar"
> >>
> >>Actually admins and users accept the installation of Sugar on their
> >>client as Sugar. Because such a limited number of users have access
> >>to the internet, ASLO is essentially unknown.
> >>
> >>This problem is the Sugar developers. Some see the activities
> >>incorporated by James Cameron in the OLPC OS versions as integral
> >>(although that lists varies by Xo model). Even the list of
> >>'non-erasable' activities is somewhat arbitrary.  For example, the
> >>Chat activity is included but TurtleBlocks is not.
> >The protected activities list is set by the deployer; it is a
> >customisation step.  For Debian, it should be restricted to Terminal
> >and Browse, for without these a system is unusable, and it is the
> >Debian way to not restrict what a user does with their computer.
> >
> >>So from a Debian perspective as distro of the Sugar desktop, making
> >>a canonical version available for even numbered releases of Sugar
> >>(0.110 -> 0.112) should be the pattern.
> >Certainly not.  Jonas and the other Debian maintainers should be
> >encouraged to package any Sugar release version or upstream patches.
> >
> >>The desktop should include as activities Browse, Write, Chat, Log,
> >>Terminal, Record, Jukebox, and Image Viewer. Record is a problem
> >>because it provides the interface to the host's camera and
> >>microphone. Other activities can be made available by Sugar Labs (as
> >>distro) via ASLO for installation by users and admins.
> >>
> >>Naturally, I am speaking only for myself.
> >Indeed.
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> pkg-sugar-devel mailing list
> pkg-sugar-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sugar-devel

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/