[Debian-olpc-devel] Sugar 0.88

[Sascha Silbe]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 09:05:52AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> 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.
The PO files getting stripped was a mistake - they got dropped out from 
some auto* setting (the actual mistake) and thus were not included in 
the source tarball (generated using some auto* rule) anymore.

> 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!).
AFAICT Sugar is relying on the usual auto* magic. Do you think there's 
anything wrong with our setup, or should we do something beyond what 
auto* usually does?

>> 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.
OK, got it narrowed down. As I suspected, it's gconf returning None (for 
/desktop/sugar/desktop/favorites_layout). Now we get to the point where 
my gconf experience is lacking:
/usr/share/gconf/schemas/sugar.schemas contains a default setting 
("ring-layout"), but this doesn't get applied. In fact gconftool-2 never 
reads any .schemas file, only /var/lib/gconf/defaults/%gconf-tree.xml. 
The latter file contains several "directories" for for 
/desktop/sugar/..., but no "entries" whereas it has lots of entries for 
/apps/metacity/....

This is on a fresh debootstrap'ed installation of Debian Squeeze that 
only ever has seen the current Sugar packages from Squeeze and your 
newly packaged ones. Except for starting up Sugar and changing views, it 
hasn't been used in any way (because there are no activities).

Where it gets interesting is that I still have the chroot I used for 
creating the installation - and there the defaults file contains all the 
/desktop/sugar/... entries! The recorded "mtime" of the entries is that 
of the upgrade from the Sugar packages in Squeeze to the ones from your 
repo.
The only difference between the two copies is that I've installed a few 
more packages on the "real" one, booted it, started up Sugar on it and 
installed your packages at a different time.

Can you make any sense out of this? Some gconf tool being called during 
package upgrade failed to do its job perhaps?

>>> 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.
Ah, that works now, thanks!

Not sure whether it matters, but I encountered this output during 
installation (inside the chroot):

Setting up xulrunner-1.9.1 (1.9.1.8-5) ...
Obtaining the module object from Python failed.

<type 'exceptions.ImportError'>: No module named xpcom.server
Obtaining the module object from Python failed.

<type 'exceptions.ImportError'>: No module named xpcom.server


> Same goes  for Read and Chat - I finished all three before heading for 
> bed last  night.
Yay!

> 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.
That would be useful indeed.

CU Sascha

-- 
http://sascha.silbe.org/
http://www.infra-silbe.de/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/attachments/20100331/22c3143e/attachment.pgp>