[Debian-olpc-devel] Missing deps for sucrose-0.86.

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:09:09PM +0100, Sascha Silbe wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:34:06PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>Please note that comparing the list of missing dependencies 
>>provided by  Michael Stone with the "components" listed in the 
>>"Sugar Platform" page,  only EToys is missing.
>That's good news. Which package does gst-plugins-espeak hide in? It's 
>still on my to-do list for sugar-jhbuild.

It is not (yet) packaged for Debian, I believe.  Oh, sorry if I missed 
out on that one...

And you might have misunderstood: I did not mean to say that all is well 
except EToys.  Just that the Sugar Platform" page seems to be not enough 
to avoid surprises/frustrations.

Example: When that page states that GStreamer can be expected, does that 
then mean core GStreamer infrastructure, core CStreamer + Python 
bindings, common GStreamer (whatever that really is) + Python bindings, 
or any and all weird GStreamer extensions (that is packaged for Fedora).


>I should have made clear that I intended the meta package to be for 
>non-Fructose, non-packaged activities ("Honey"). The fact that it also 
>provides all dependencies needed by Fructose is only a nice bonus (but 
>was the reason I mentioned it).

Ah, now I get it :-)

Yes, it makes good sense to provide such metapackage.  What would be an 
appropriate name?

I suspect it should be versioned like sucrose-0.8x packages, and I 
suspect that the "Sugar Platform" will develop.

I feel that honey-0.8x is a bad name, as it really does not pull in 
Honey, only the _platform_ for Honey.

How about honey-deps-0.8x?

Oh - or your proposal below: sugar-platform-0.8x.  Not bad...


>>And when all packages part of Sucrose is packaged, the current 
>>suggests of sucrose-0.8x packages will be raised to depends, as that 
>>package will then act as the Debian official way to install "all of 
>>core Sugar".
>Similarly the sugar-platform-0.xx (whatever it gets called) should 
>provide not only "core" Sugar, but "all an activity author can safely 
>rely on being available". It will significantly increase the 
>installation size (which is why a "core" package is still useful), but 
>provide assurance that all well-written (and portable) activities 
>should work.

Let's have a look at the "assurance":

>Python 2.5/2.6

Authors should then know that "well-written" implies "must only use 
functions supported by *both* Python 2.5 and Python 2.6".


>Gtk+ 2.16

Debian have moved on to GTK+ 2.18 in Sid, and do not offer the older 
library as an alternative.


>GStreamer 0.10

[...]

>gstreamer 0.10.14

Huh?!? I guess the capitalized is an ABI and the lowercased one is the 
actual implementation.  So a Sugar Platform must include a specific 
micro version of the actual implementation of GStreamer?!?


That page seems Fedora-specific to me.  For distros (based on) other 
than Fedora the page seems usable only as inspiration!

It seems to me that the page needs clarification (is it ABIs or 
implementation releases? is it exact or minimum numbers?) to be really 
usable on a wider scale.



Kind regards,

  - Jonas

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

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/attachments/20091129/9d8e7460/attachment-0001.pgp>