[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#586243: education-desktop-sugar: please remove this package, it's outdated and confuses users



On 28. juni 2010 13:59, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Sascha Silbe]
>> The problem with this package is that it misleads users into
>> installing it and turning their system into something that works
>> differently (LTSP) from what they expect (a regular desktop).
> 
> This do not sound right.  There is nothing related ot LTSP in the
> education-desktop-sugar meta package.
> 
>> See the original bug description:
>>
>> === Begin ===
>> Please remove education-desktop-sugar from sid/squeeze. It depends on
>> obsolete package names and confuses users.
>> The description suggests this is what to install to get a complete Sugar
>> installation on a desktop, whereas it will actually install the Debian
>> Edu suite (+ Sugar). One user even reported it "will hose your boot" (the
>> system hung part-way through the boot process - unfortunately no more
>> details are available as he was in a hurry and overwrote the installation
>> with Fedora afterwards in order to get a working Sugar installation).
>> === End ===
>>
>> If someone cares about this package enough to maintain it, changing the
>> description (to point out that it's LTSP + Sugar, not Sugar on a desktop)
>> and updating the dependencies should be enough. But without an active
>> maintainer removing the package is the best option and should be done
>> ASAP.
> 
> It isn't LTSP + Sugar.  Where did you get that idea?  The task is for
> Sugar on a Debian Edu desktop.  The problem is that there are very few
> sugar packages in Debian (both testing and unstable).  If the package
> lists in education-desktop-sugar is wrong, please provide information
> on exactly what is wrong.
> 

I suspect he mixed LTSP and EDU. and that he was supried that he got
Debian EDU + Sugar. even tho that is the intention of this package. it
may be confusing since the description does not explicitly mentions
Debian Edu.

Ronny


Reply to: