[Debian-olpc-devel] Sugar 0.88

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:17:57AM +0200, Sascha Silbe wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:05:48PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>New packaging releases are now released of the following:
>[Glucose 0.84/0.86/0.88]
>Wow, thanks!
>
>>If interested in packaging, don't hesitate to ask if something is not 
>>obvious from just looking at it!
>I'll probably do once I try again setting up nightly snapshot builds - 
>the last time I failed because of conflicts with PO files (that got 
>dropped from the tarball at some point), but that should be fixed now.

Yeah, I noticed too that different things are shipped in Git and in 
final tarballs - not only PO files but autogen.sh also gets stripped.  
Packaging would probably be simpler to automate reliably if upstream 
never *stripped* files when making tarballs from Git (except the very 
Git-specific .git/ and .gitignore), only *added* autogenerated files 
(and not too much of that either - run "make distclean" too!).

Feel free to pass that upstream - or ask if you want more details on 
that.


>>   deb http://debian.jones.dk/ sid sugar
>I updated Glucose with packages from that repo (using https - 
>thanks!). Now Sugar fails to start up: some KeyError with NoneType 
>being used in layout-related code. Will investigate tomorrow.

Strange.  I found no problems when trying myself briefly.  Please tell 
more.



>>Browse packaged now, and tested that it works with 0.88 libs!
>I don't see sugar-browse-activity-0.88 in the above repo. Is it 
>somewhere else?

You should install sugar-browse-activity-0.86, even for 0.88.  Same goes 
for Read and Chat - I finished all three before heading for bed last 
night.

It almost worked as smoothly as intended to have an activity package 
cover 2 branches: In debian/rules in source i changed

   DEB_SUGAR_BRANCHES = 0.86

to

   DEB_SUGAR_BRANCHES = 0.86 0.88

which then expands binary package dependencies to permit either of the 
branches.

(there was one bug in expanding DEB_PYTHON_SUGAR_PACKAGES properly, 
though, which will get fixed in next release of CDBS. Until then that 
variable needs to be declared explicitly)

I will propably improve that expansion logic to also add virtual 
packages as needed.  Let me illustrate with an example: the actual 
binary packaging of Browse is sugar-browse-activity-0.86 as that is the 
first branch that ABI was introduced. When now it turns out that same 
ABI is used for the succeeding branch too, the name of the binary 
package is kept (to not cause new ftpmaster approval of package names 
which might risk loosing it if close to a distribution freeze). It makes 
sense, though, for sugar-browse-activity-0.86 to then provide a virtual 
package sugar-browse-activity-0.88, as convenience for users.  I will 
try implement that in the CDBS python.sugar.mk snippet.


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/20100331/8cbcedda/attachment.pgp>