Sugar feature freeze exception

Some individual sync requests have been filed before, but never tended to: bug 242237, bug 246017, bug 255850.

Which of the other bugs on https://bugs.launchpad.net/~sugarteam/+packagebugs would be fixed by this?

We should be able to fix:

#219358 - dependency on python-abiword - I'll talk to the abiword people about this because I think the python-abiword functionality is in the abiword package now
#263173 - Browse fails on startup
#217708 - packaging request for Terminal
#210174 - new upstream version should fix this
#217693 - can remove this dependency
#246015 - new packaging would fix this

Which is basically everything except the matchbox bugs - I'm not sure that we should own that, I'll find out who cares about matchbox.

What packages are involved? Can you provide build and install logs for all of them? Will there be any removal or new source/binary involved (I see the sugar source for instance will only provide one binary against the 3 of the current Ubuntu package)?

Hi,

while it's great to have a dedicated sugar team, I must admit that I'm quite sceptical this request. None of you can upload to the archive, and hence I'd really like to see at least one MOTU / core-dev who agrees to take care to updating the sugar packages.

Cheers,
    Stefan.

Cesare, we have packaging of newer upstream components in a PPA, following the existing hardy packaging: https://launchpad.net/~chapter78/+archive. That doesn't change package names or binaries. While we have been working more closely with the debian maintainer recently, it might be more risky to switch to the debian packaging and maybe we should update the current packaging with the latest upstream stable (slightly newer than this PPA - see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SugarTeam/Packages where I have listed all the versions).

I'll update the Sugar Team PPA to this latest upstream packaging in the next few days and we can evaluate that. I'm open to suggestions in this - what I want to see is Sugar updated before intrepid releases.

While I unfortunately do not have time for sugar packaging, a sync from Debian would be beneficial so we're in line with them and current upstream. Morgan may not be an uploader he is involved in upstream Sugar and represents their PoV, and knows better than me why these changes are better than staying with current packaging.
I will sponsor any debdiff they produce to fix up possible divergences with Debian packaging.
Morgan if there are extra Conflicts or Replaces fields to be added do you think Debian devs can be asked to add them even though they mention Ubuntu only packages?

Stefan,

Jani Monoses who did the hardy packaging is on our mailing list, although he has little time for involvement. I'll ask him for his input here.

I've been holding back on advertising the team and the tasks to recruit more people to get involved, until we have the FFE and some packages, but I'll see who I can recruit to assist.

I am an upstream developer and have been involved in the Sugar 0.82 release, so I'm very familiar with the upstream source. I am the direct upstream maintainer of sugar-chat-activity, sugar-read-activity, sugar-pollbuilder-activity and co-maintainer of sugar-presence-server.

I will discuss what Jani has raised with the Debian team. We have some activities packaged that they don't yet have, although in most cases there have not been significant updates since the hardy versions, so that's not a significant problem. I'll see if we can get those activities into Debian.

At this point, Ubuntu is considered the best platform for people to use for Sugar besides OLPC's XO. This is due to the hardy packages, as well as the PPA that I mentioned. I would hate to see that regress.

Admittedly I am new to deb packaging, although I have in the course of working for OLPC become a fedora maintainer for several of the Sugar components, and am confident that I'll master the deb packaging in short order.

Ok, that's great. Jani, since you'll take care for uploading, that's one major point of concern less for me.

Looking at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IntrepidReleaseSchedule, there isn't very much time left to get everything in. Do you have an estimate how long you'll take to get the packages in?

Finally, I guess I'm not too opposed to give an ACK, but would love to hear other motu-release members' opinion on this.

As Morgan said:

>I'll update the Sugar Team PPA to this latest upstream packaging in the next few days and we can >evaluate that.

I'd also appreciate install logs for all packages involved.

I still just have email access online, so I can't do a detailed assessment,
but I'd generally be inclined towards updating.

Stefan, we'll get the packages synced from Debian ASAP, and then fix issues relating to the transition - shouldn't take us more than a few days after the sync to sort that out.

I'd be glad to ack this once the logs norsetto asked for have been provided.

norsetto,

I have pulled the debian packages into my PPA: https://launchpad.net/~morgan/+archive - the only changes I made were changing the maintainer to me in debian/control since it wouldn't upload without an ubuntu.com address.

(Initially I uploaded for hardy, so I reuploaded for intrepid to make sure the packages were built against intrepid.)

The hardy sugar sourcepackage produces three binary packages whereas debian's doesn't - the extras, sugar-emulator (installing just one file /usr/bin/sugar-emulator and depending on xephyr) and sugar-activities (a metapackage) are trivial to add in debian/ so I can do that as soon as we sync.

sugar-hulahop is the one problem now since it requires python-xpcom 1.9, and we only have python-xpcom built off xulrunner (1.8) not xulrunner-1.9 so I have logged bug 277564 for that. sugar-hulahop is a dependency of the web browser, sugar-web-activity, so that won't work unless this is fixed, but it's just a packaging issue for xulrunner-1.9.

With that exception, I installed the other packages on a new intrepid VM and got the attached install log.

OK, now it's attached.

motu-release ack #1 from me

*nod*, please go ahead.

Ok, sync requests have been made at bug 277770, bug 277776, bug 277777, bug 277778, bug 277779, bug 277782, bug 277787, bug 277788, bug 277789. bug 277790, and bug 277798.

All packages synced.