Software testing help wanted for Raspberry Pi

I’m trying to sort out the back catalogue of packaged software so we can ship the Raspberry Pi with an easy-to-install repository of tested software. I need your help! If you have a Raspberry Pi, it would be a great help if you could have a go at the following:

Start from a downloaded Raspberry Pi disc image. To set up the packaging system (only need be done once):

1. Run $.Apps.!PackMan
2. While PackMan is running, move $.! Boot.Resources.!System.310.Modules.SharedULib somewhere safe out of !System
3. Click Menu over the PackMan icon and go to Advanced→Sources which brings up a dialogue
4. Select the line that’s there, click Edit… and replace the URL to say http://www.riscos.info/packages/pkg/raspberrypi
5. Click OK, and then Save, making sure ‘Refresh package lists’ is ticked
6. PackMan will say ‘downloading package information’ and hopefully eventually ‘done’
7. Click Select over the PackMan iconbar icon.
8. You get a big list of available packages. Scroll down to SharedUnixLibrary, select it, and click the install button (button with green arrow on top left of top toolbar)
9. Click Install on the dialogue that appears
10. Hopefully it should go through ‘Downloading’ then ‘Installing’ and various other steps and finally ‘done’

Now we’re back to square one, but the packaging system is set up (all the above will hopefully be preconfigured in a release distro). One other thing to note: I’ll be changing the package database behind the scenes, so if it’s been a while or you have a problem installing something, one thing you can usefully do is click ‘Update Lists’ from the PackMan iconbar menu to make sure you have the latest list of packages.

So now you can pick a program from the list, and install it just like you did SharedUnixLibrary. Apps that are installed will appear in subdirectories of $.Apps (you can move them around with no problems, it’ll just prevent PackMan updating that app in future).

What I’d like help with is people to install apps from the list and test them. Post your experiences in this thread. Please post a brief summary of:

1. The package name
2. Ideally the package version (the Inst: box when you select it in PackMan)
3. Does it work? If it doesn’t, what happens (errors, odd behaviour etc)?
4. In a sentence, roughly how thoroughly did you test it (for example, it ran but you didn’t have an example data file to load to test further)?
5. If it doesn’t work, try turning on rotated loads with Andrew Conroy’s configuration tool and trying again. Does it work now?
6. Does the package need other things (for example, modules it complains about) but it doesn’t install for you?
7. Is the package out of date compared with the same program available from other sources (eg a Zip available on an author’s website)?
8. Is the program inappropriate for a RaspberryPi (for example, something that talks to hardware only found on a Risc PC)? Would its presence be confusing to a newcomer?

Bear in mind that some of these are command line programs so, for example, wget provides that star command rather than having a GUI.

Thanks for your help!

Hi
I just bought a new SD Card so I should be able to try this in the next few days.

How urgent is it?

Package name: Dr Wimp
it downloaded OK but I don’t know whether the version which was already there in ‘Programming.DrWimp’ has been replaced by the new one or whether it has been put somewhere else – how do I see where it has (or intends to) put the software I select? Do I get to choose where it goes (other than the resources within !Boot)?

Oh! I see it has put them in a sub directory of Apps. I use sub directories of Apps for all the outdated versions of software up to and including the latest one so I have many directories (such as ArtWorks) there with older versions. That keeps them nicely hidden from the filer but easily available to look at older versions, examples, manuals etc. Not too keen on the idea of a name conflict. Also we don’t want to get the filer looking at sub directories in Apps otherwise all the old versions of software will get initialised too.

Note that the version of Dr Wimp listed in the packages is rather old (4.6). Although it is Basic, and therefore ARMv7 compatibilty is not an issue, there are a number of problems in 4.6, e.g. doesn’t work with FSs such as Fat32FS, there are problems due to the lack of unsigned int in Basic affecting anything involving high memory addresses, and more. The latest version is 5.03, in which a number of these issues have been fixed.

Package name: StrongEd
this is version 4.68 – do you have permission to redistribute it in this way? The version on the ROOL DDE is 4.69a5 and the latest is 4.69a6 (I think). Is 4.68 ARM7 safe?

Package name: StrongEd

StrongED, please.

this is version 4.68 – do you have permission to redistribute it in this way?

Yes, absolutely.

The version on the ROOL DDE is 4.69a5 and the latest is 4.69a6 (I think). Is 4.68 ARM7 safe?

No, definitely not.

Yes, absolutely.

Now I’m really puzzled. One caveat is that PD libraries and collections [whatever that means] cannot distribute StrongED (sic) without permission (just) so that the correct version is provided. Here this site is specifically for Raspberry pi so it doesn’t look like this ‘control’ is working correctly.

Now I’m really puzzled.

What’s to be puzzled about? In late 2009 Alan Buckley asked for permission to package the stable release of StrongED (4.68). Permission for this was granted, and StrongED 4.68 became available through RiscPkg/PackMan.

The fact that it’s been included in a list of packages for the RPi is therefore fine. For 4.68 to be useful however it requires that alignment exceptions are off, and it probably needs rotated loads to be on.

StrongED (sic)

There’s nothing wrong with StrongED, it’s how Guttorm Vik decided to call it. You may not like it, you might have capitalised it differently but that doesn’t make it wrong.

Since RPi will ship with a more recent StrongED I’m tempted to remove this one from the archive, so people aren’t confused.

DrWimp: I’ve had a go at packaging up v5.02 (took rather longer than expected, hadn’t realised DrWimp was such a complex package). Haven’t finished it yet, but I’ll push it out when I have.

Timescales: the final disc image freeze is 24th August. I can fix things behind the scenes after this date, but it’ll mean people will have to update their package lists to detect it so it would be better to ship with a list that’s approximately right. Adding things to the blacklist is a 2 minute job, fixing packages that are broken may take considerably longer.

It would be nicer to ship stronged packaged, but already installed.

There’s nothing wrong with StrongED

The term ‘sic’ (meaning ‘thus’) is simply there to indicate that the unusual capitalisation is deliberate.

StrongED, please.

Nooooooo!

Next you’ll be telling me that “RiscOS” is wrong!

The term ‘sic’ (meaning ‘thus’) is simply there to indicate that the unusual capitalisation is deliberate.

Thanks Chris, I was focussing on its use to indicate retained spelling mistakes.

Next you’ll be telling me that “RiscOS” is wrong!

And it is. ;-)
Capitilisation matters in the programming world, FooBar != FooBAR. :-P

Now I’m really puzzled. One caveat is that PD libraries and collections [whatever that means] cannot distribute StrongED (sic) without permission (just) so that the correct version is provided.

For someone who has been responsible for compiling a software distribution, you seem to have a lot of problems understanding even the most basic of software licenses.

Since you’ve raised the matter again, however, I’m still waiting for the promised public closure from ROOL over your small ‘misunderstanding’ with PrintPDF.

For someone who has been responsible for compiling a software distribution, you seem to have a lot of problems understanding even the most basic of software licenses.

The word ‘licence’ as a noun should be spelt with a ‘c’ not an ‘s’.
When a licence says ‘this program is freeware and may be copied freely’ I don’t expect a rant from the author when I do just that.

The word ‘licence’ as a noun should be spelt with a ‘c’ not an ‘s’.
When a licence says ‘this program is freeware and may be copied freely’ I don’t expect a rant from the author when I do just that.

The phrase you have been searching for for a week or so is “I’m sorry, I made a mistake”
I’m rather grateful that people like Steve produce software I can use so freely and being critical of spelling foibles is not an endearing trait at any time, and especially so mid-dispute.
For what it’s worth I have the same habit with license and licence, which as a CAMRA member I really ought to have got my head around by now.

“If you wish to distribute PrintPDF, please contact me to get my permission.”
This line in the license file of 0.88 also appears in versions back as far as the copy I have on my RPC dated 0.32 (10 September 2005)
British vs American spelling aside the content is clear.

Say sorry, follow the instruction in the line I quoted, move on.

Chris, are you trying to wind people up on purpose? Because it seems like it!

Personally I’m grateful to the likes of Steve, Fred and the other remaining free software developers (well all remaining developers actually) and hope they do not throw in the towel because of your ridiculous pedantry.

Are you some sort of double agent in the pay of ROL? :)

When a licence says ‘this program is freeware and may be copied freely’ I don’t expect a rant from the author when I do just that.

Downloading a copy of such a program for yourself or giving a copy to your friends is one thing. Distributing it yourself is an entirely different thing entirely. At the very least, a bit of courtesy would be nice: “Would you mind if I distributed your software?”.

Even now, you still don’t get it. I’m not sure whether that’s disturbing or just plain sad.

For what it’s worth, although I understand Steve’s point around the licencing of PrintPDF – and the subsequent follow-up discussions; I’ll add that Chris was very clear in asking for my permission (and what that could be interms of Raspberry Pi Foundation redistribution) when I asked if it’d be useful to include the demo version of WimpWorks in the distro.

(Since the only downside of the demo version is a nag screen and disabled memory management, the 128MB of the Raspberry Pi should make it very easy to produce useful applications before the memory usage becomes an issue)

Hi guys. I’m afraid due to the combined time-pressures of day job and preparing for the big RPi launch, I’ve not really been following the forums for a few weeks. But I do think some official statement from ROOL is required about things such as the PrintPDF issue.

The RISC OS distro for the RPi needs to be completely clean in terms of licensing of all of the third party software it includes. ROOL are going to be giving it a thorough check over the weekend to ensure nothing has slipped through the net. Chris has done a great job in his own time to pull the distro together but I think the initial inclusion of PrintPDF was a mistake. Happily, this is all sorted now with the go-ahead to include it from Steve (thanks!). We’ve been working hard to contact lots of software authors to clarify their permission where the license isn’t already explicit – and doing this before adding their software. What we hope to end up with is a representative cross-section of all the best free RISC OS software in one package.

Remember: this is still very much a work-in-progress and we’re a few weeks away from getting the final release candidate sorted out, so in the mean time, please keep your suggestions and bug reports coming…

Are you some sort of double agent in the pay of ROL? :)

But that would mean they would have to have an income stream…

The phrase you have been searching for for a week or so is “I’m sorry, I made a mistake”

Seriously though I have already said sorry – see post below – I learnt many years ago from a friend who had upset his neighbour – he didn’t know what he had done wrong and she was annoyed and didn’t want to speak and so he just said ‘Sorry’ and still doesn’t know to this day what he did wrong:

Sorry. Didn’t realise (I haven’t seen this correspondence). There is an email on its way to all concerned.

I have also obtained permission. Surely this is enough?

But that would mean they would have to have an income stream…

Ouch! (^_^)

he didn’t know what he had done wrong and she was annoyed and didn’t want to speak and so he just said ‘Sorry’ and still doesn’t know to this day what he did wrong

Are you saying you don’t know what you did wrong? I think you might be being ragged upon slightly because you don’t quite seem to realise there is a difference between downloading and using something, and in being an actual distributor of something (this includes bundles and repackaging). It is entirely valid for a copyright clause to state that any distribution must ask for permission even for something completely publically available. You don’t have to like it, or understand it. You just have to obey it and not argue if you get called in it.
There is, in some licence I wrote ages ago, a clause stating that the user of the software must (and I quote) “be nice to kittens”. As ridiculous as it seems, I would be within my rights to enforce this as it does not contravene your local laws (thus is a valid clause) and the user agreed to it. It isn’t my fault if the user never bothered to read, the installer program shows that rubbish and you must click “I accept”…

In short, licences don’t have to make sense. They just have to be legally valid.

Oh, and forget the term “freeware” exists. It is not a legal definition, so everybody using it probably has a slightly different interpretation. For example, is “freeware” software under copyright or copyleft? Are there restrictions on distribution or is it a free-for-all merry hack-fest? If somebody says something is “freeware”, they must also explicitly define what this means, otherwise it could be a world of pain. For you.

In short, you should ask permission where anything is unclear, and never make assumptions. Remember, it is copyright, the default option is nothing permitted. Like I said, it doesn’t have to make sense…

Sorry for the abrupt end there, Chris. My netbook’s fan fiddle didn’t kick in when I brought it out of standby, so the fan wasn’t actually turning (eeek!) and the temp was getting in the high 70s. Thought I’d better reboot the thing. Now it is 51C with the fan hacked to be 100% on and I’m happy. ;-)

[the reason for this is the BIOS reads the fan temperatures from the CPU, and likes to set the fan to keep the thing around 65C or so; but the problem is that it seems to me that most of the heat comes from the SSDs which don’t have a temp sensor; so logic would suggest erring on the side of cool; but I guess people would rather have a shorter lifespan instead of hearing the fan noise (which isn’t that bad really)]

Surely this is enough?

It would be, if I thought that I could believe it. Unfortunately, in the past week and a half since we sorted out a license for PrintPDF, I’ve seen you repeatedly post to these forums with comments like

When a licence says ‘this program is freeware and may be copied freely’ I don’t expect a rant from the author when I do just that.

That, to me, suggests that your “sorry” was more than a little grudging and that you still don’t understand what you did that was wrong. That isn’t on.

The licence that you’re quoting said something else, too. You can’t just selectively pick the bit of the licence that you want to accept and ignore the rest of it: it doesn’t work like that.

Now I’m really puzzled. One caveat is that PD libraries and collections [whatever that means] cannot distribute StrongED (sic) without permission (just) so that the correct version is provided.

This is another example. I’ve no idea what you’ve discussed with Fred, but the fact that you’re now in possession of a licence for PrintPDF which looks nothing like the one on the public download would, I’d have hoped, have made you aware that software authors can grant more than one licence for their work. There’s nothing “puzzling” about the StrongED situation: RiscPkg could be doing what you did, or they could have got an agreement from Fred that’s over and above the one made to users who download the text editor from Fred’s website. I suspect the latter, myself.

In the case of PrintPDF, you had no licence to distribute it until you got in contact with me and we agreed one. You now do have such a license for the RPi distro, but that doesn’t mean that anyone else could start distributing it as a result. They would also have to ask for (and be given) a suitable license.

Can we draw a line under this and move on, please? If you still don’t understand why what you did with PrintPDF was wrong, then please ask someone who does (of whom there seem to be plenty around here) to explain it fully to you. Then accept that you were wrong, apologise meaningfully, and stop trolling this forum with justifications for your mistake.

openssh, opened task manager.
Needed to increase next memory size (I increased it alot)
then running ssh from task manager caused segfault

*ssh

Fatal signal received: Segmentation fault

Stack backtrace:

Running thread 0×16df0c
( 307f38) pc: 1056f4 lr: 105d08 sp: 307f3c __write_backtrace()
( 307fa0) pc: 1058ac lr: 106558 sp: 307fa4 __unixlib_raise_signal()
( 307fb0) pc: 10645c lr: 2d458 sp: 3069e8 __h_cback() ( 307f38) pc: 1056f4 lr: 105d08 sp: 307f3c __write_backtrace()
( 307fa0) pc: 1058ac lr: 106558 sp: 307fa4 __unixlib_raise_signal()
( 307fb0) pc: 10645c lr: 2d458 sp: 3069e8 __h_cback()

*