olpc January 2009

olpc@lists.fedoraproject.org

23 participants
41 discussions

Package Fructose activities for F11
by Simon Schampijer 30 Jan '09

30 Jan '09

Hi, as discussed in the xo/rpm session at FUDCon [1] we decided to keep the xo format and push the activities addons infrastructure forward. The fructose packages (a basic set of activities) will keep on being packaged for the distributions (debain, fedora, ubuntu…) to offer a basic system to start from. All the other non-fructose activities we do not care packaging for the moment. The latest Sucrose release 0.83.4 [2] contains the following Activities. Most of them need to be packaged for F11 since we want to ship Sucrose 0.84. I did request permissions to each of the activities to be able to help package them (please set them as appropriate - Jeremy has the most of the requests :). And help packaging the activities would be really appreciated. Fabian and others have been doing a great work already! * read 63 (not packaged yet - evince dependency - tomeu is getting this upstream) * chat 62 (47) * terminal 21 (16) * imageviewer 5 (+ 5 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=80698) * jukebox 6 (+ 6 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=75499) * turtleart 23 (+ 23 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=74780) * browse 103 (+ 103) * etoys 99 (license) * write 61 (59 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=72612) * calculate 28 (23 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=72601) * log 16 (+ 16 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=72605) * pippy 25 (not packaged yet) And you can become a package for glucose (the base system (sugar-shell, sugar-toolkit...)) as well. Instructions can be found at [3] and I am happy to answer any questions about that. Thanks, Simon [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Sugar_on_Fedora:_RPMs_or_.xos%3F [2] http://sugarlabs.org/go/DevelopmentTeam/Release/Releases/Sucrose/0.83.4#Fru… [3] http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/sugar/repos/mainline/blobs/master/docs/re…

4 7

Re: hulahop 0.4.7 got in updates by mistake
by Peter Robinson 30 Jan '09

30 Jan '09

> Am Montag, den 26.01.2009, 19:11 +0100 schrieb Simon Schampijer: >> Hi, >> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hulahop-0.4.7-1.fc10 got into >> F10 updates by mistake - Browse is broken. > > Peter, why did you push it to stable after only a single day in testing? > This way you render updates-testing useless. I didn't believe I did but at the time I was dealing with a pile of stuff and it might have slipped through. It was the exact same package as in the OLPC-4 branch at the time so it had already had a lot of test and it was just moving it across as there was no reason for a branch, see the discussion about it on the list. Peter

1 0

Fedora on XO - Lite
by Sebastian Dziallas 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

Hi folks, well, why his subject line? What some tend to call 'Fedora on XO' was intended for the most recent G1G1 project, right? Work has continued since then, based on jlaska's announcement of the foundation of a XFCE team [1]. For example, a wiki page has been drafted up here [2]. But the most important result might be in the GIT repo, which contains the kickstart files [3]. Some unneeded hardware support has been dropped (e.g. for network cards, as well as for graphics), though, there might be still some low hanging fruits. The olpc-base.ks is heavily based on the fedora-live-base.ks, but was trimmed down. On the other hand, we're including a XFCE desktop environment with quite some applications in the olpc-xfce.ks file. So why am I writing this post? I've been continuing to produce builds for this, and it turned out, that the most recent image is just around 275 MB! Hey, that's pretty small, hu? ;) But there are also some problems: For example, it turned out that with the F10 updates enabled, there was just some image flickering and no chance to login to the desktop. I'm not yet completely sure, what to suspect: At first, I had SELinux in mind, but disabling it didn't change a lot (just some warnings went away). Now I'm thinking about some X.org drivers, but well... Overall, when just creating the image just from the F10 distribution, it works as expected, so there must be an update the cause. Nevertheless, feedback (for example on what else to remove) or suggestions regarding the selected apps are greatly appreciated. :) --Sebastian [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-olpc-list/2008-October/msg00080.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestPlans/XFCE [3] http://dev.laptop.org/git/projects/fedora-xo

2 2

Tomorrow's meeting
by Greg DeKoenigsberg 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Hi folks. I find myself in an important meeting here at Red Hat that I cannot gracefully get out of, and it is during our fedora-olpc meeting time. Unless someone else would like to lead, I'm afraid I'm going to have to cancel. I recommend deferring, and meeting during our next scheduled meeting time, which is February 5th. --g -- Got an XO that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer! [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]]

3 3

Re: [Sugar-devel] Soas snapshot
by Simon Schampijer 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > You can download the iso here: > > http://download.sugarlabs.org/soas/snapshots/1/Soas-200901271941.iso I have an issue to boot the stick on my desktop machine (ASUS A7V8X-X). It works fine on my T61 though. SYSLINUX 3.51 2007-06-10 EBIOS Copyright (C) 1994-2007 H. Peter Anvin Could not find kernel image: linux boot I tried if i could start the kernel directly with: boot: /syslinux/vmlinuz0 but it can not be found. Tried as well to specify the initrd but I always get the message that the kernel image can not be found. Found this thread but it does not really contain any solution for me https://fedorahosted.org/liveusb-creator/ticket/58 I use as well Fat16 as claimed by a few in this thread. Anyhow, so the images work great in general! Maybe someone has an idea about this error :) Thanks, Simon

1 0

Moving joyride to rawhide
by Peter Robinson 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Hi All, With the plans of releasing what is/was going to be 9.1.0 as based on Fedora 11 (rather than the original plans of Fedora 10) what is the plans on moving the joyride daily builds to pull in rawhide rather than Fedora 10? Is the plan for the 9.1.0 release (is it still going to be called that?) to be built from the existing OLPC build system (pilgrim?) or is there plans to move it to the Fedora system? If there are plans to move to the Fedora build system will it be able to sign the releases etc, or is this planned for sometime later? The reason I ask these questions is because its probably better to make the move sooner rather than later so people don't waste time testing and fixing things on Fedora 10 where it would be better to use the time with Fedora 11 so larger changes like python 2.6 etc can be tested. Sorry for the ramble..... Peter

3 2

Re: hulahop 0.4.7 got in updates by mistake
by Mikus Grinbergs 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hulahop-0.4.7-1.fc10 got into > F10 updates by mistake - Browse is broken. I build now 0.4.6 again with > the Epoch field set to 1. I'm running on a "real" XO with Joyride 2632/2633, which has hulahop-0.4.7-1.olpc4 As far as I can tell, Browse Activity works fine for me. mikus

2 1

hulahop 0.4.7 got in updates by mistake
by Simon Schampijer 26 Jan '09

26 Jan '09

Hi, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hulahop-0.4.7-1.fc10 got into F10 updates by mistake - Browse is broken. I build now 0.4.6 again with the Epoch field set to 1. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hulahop-0.4.6-5.fc10 Please vote if it works for you :) Thanks, Simon

1 0

Re: SoaS on the XO progress
by Sebastian Dziallas 24 Jan '09

24 Jan '09

Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti > <marcopg(a)sugarlabs.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org> wrote: >>> D'oh, I think OLPC asked Warren to push that X driver update, and it >>> sounds like we didn't test it properly. Is there a good way to select >>> which version of an RPM to use in kickstart, maybe? >> Which package are you referring to here exactly? I'm confused because >> F10 and rawhide seem to have the same versions of X packages, and >> joyride works but F10 doesn't. > > Hm, reverting from 2.11 to 2.10 actually fixes it. So I don't get why > 2.11 works in joyride. > > Marco I just wanted to add that it's possible to select a specific version in a kickstart file. Though, as far as I know, it's a revisor-only feature. You can run revisor and add the --kickstart-exact-nevra option then: --kickstart-exact-nevra Force Revisor to interpret the package manifest as complete package nevra (name, epoch, version, release and architecture). Implies --kickstart-exact 'yum install revisor' should do the trick [1]. ;) --Sebastian [1] https://fedorahosted.org/revisor/

1 0

Re: SoaS on the XO progress
by Chris Ball 23 Jan '09

23 Jan '09

Hi Marco, Got it working now. livecd-creator should be run on x86_64 as: sudo setarch i386 livecd-creator ... > * X doesn't actually crash the system, it's just very broken :) If > you switch to vt and back you can also see some parts of the gdm > screen. It looks definitely like a regression in the updates. If I > build an image with updates disabled X works fine. D'oh, I think OLPC asked Warren to push that X driver update, and it sounds like we didn't test it properly. Is there a good way to select which version of an RPM to use in kickstart, maybe? I tried building Rawhide, and got the error you mentioned, linked below. Running "bash-3.2# mount -t jffs2 mtd0 /mnt" works, though, so I'm not sure what's up / why it's not creating /dev/root properly. Jeremy, any ideas? http://dev.laptop.org/~cjb/f11-boot Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb(a)laptop.org>

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

olpc January 2009