olpc March 2012

olpc@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
8 discussions

Re: 12.1.0 devel build 5 released, for the XO-1, XO-1.5 and XO-1.75
by Peter Robinson 29 Mar '12

29 Mar '12

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Gary Martin <garycmartin(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 26 Mar 2012, at 17:30, Gary Martin wrote: > >> On 26 Mar 2012, at 16:24, Daniel Drake <dsd(a)laptop.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The release is our first combined 12.1.0 / Fedora 17 release, such a >>>> small release but represents so much time by so many people in both >>>> OLPC and Fedora in the ARM side of things to get a "hardfp" ARM >>>> release. >>> >>> Thanks everyone for all the feedback so far! >> >> Just noticed that on the XO-1, the laptop power button doesn't trigger the usual sleep/shutdown full screen UI. Works fine on the XO-1.75. > > Sorry, just one more heads-up, while I bump into it (please shout if there's more appropriate channel than this mail thread): > > The XO-1.75 test unit I have here with the touch screen layer is no longer responding to screen touch input with the 12.1.0 dev build 5, it works fine on 11.3.1 build 31. Have been looking into the on-screen keyboard overlay, added to GNOME 3.2 [1] (originally a GSoC 2011 project by Nohemi Fernandez, mentored by Dan Winship), to see if it's an option we can adapt for Sugar. It should be fixed in the next release which will be out in the next couple of days or you can grab the latest rpm of olpc-kbd from arm koji [1] Peter [1] http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/olpc-kbdshim/25/1.fc17/armv7hl/o…

2 1

12.1.0 devel build 5 released, for the XO-1, XO-1.5 and XO-1.75
by Peter Robinson 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

The "We are the Knights who say... NI." release. THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT RELEASE The release is our first combined 12.1.0 / Fedora 17 release, such a small release but represents so much time by so many people in both OLPC and Fedora in the ARM side of things to get a "hardfp" ARM release. This is post alpha F-17 so the major churn for Fedora development is now closed. Also note this release has the "usr move" too. The major features destined for Fedora 17 can be found here [1]. This is the first release using the new file naming scheme, details can be found here [2], it will allow an easier means of identifying builds, in particular makes it easy to differ a x86/arm build :) Some of the notable details of this release are: - First 12.1.0 combined release for all devices :-) - Fedora 17 devel release [1] - ARM hardfp release for the XO 1.75 (note old F-14 armv5tel binaries won't run) - Latest Sugar 0.95.x devel releases - gnome 3.4 RC - gtk3 3.3.20 with multitouch! - xorg-x11-server 1.12 with XInput 2.2 (Mutlitouch). - plymouth pretty and fast boot - 3.3 based kernel for x86 XOs - 3.0 based kernel for ARM XOs - The latest firmwares - only 4Gb images, for 8Gb expand the FS, we need to review dependencies for 2Gb - a lot of various improvements Download from: http://build.laptop.org/12.1.0/os5/ [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/17/FeatureList [2] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_Process#Version_numbering

11 20

Re: 12.1.0 devel build 5 released, for the XO-1, XO-1.5 and XO-1.75
by Paul Fox 26 Mar '12

26 Mar '12

gary wrote: > On 26 Mar 2012, at 16:24, Daniel Drake <dsd(a)laptop.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> The release is our first combined 12.1.0 / Fedora 17 release, such a > >> small release but represents so much time by so many people in both > >> OLPC and Fedora in the ARM side of things to get a "hardfp" ARM > >> release. > > > > Thanks everyone for all the feedback so far! > > Just noticed that on the XO-1, the laptop power button doesn't trigger the > usual sleep/shutdown full screen UI. Works fine on the XO-1.75. in general i wouldn't expect much from powerd for this release on the xo-1 and xo-1.5 -- i believe it's failing to start. i'm working on it. paul > > Regards, > --Gary > > > We've put tickets in trac for the biggest issues reported here and > > will now be working to resolve all the problems. Stay tuned for new > > builds! > > > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > > olpc mailing list > > olpc(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/olpc > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel(a)lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel =--------------------- paul fox, pgf(a)laptop.org

1 0

Re: Debuginfo package for Python-2.7 on F14 mismatched or (l)user error?
by Martin Langhoff 17 Mar '12

17 Mar '12

Hi Jan, that's enormously useful -- thanks! I'll make sure we fix our kernel options so this isn't an issue in the future. And I'll patch my gdb so I can read the other stacktraces. cheers - m On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:46:16 +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote: >> Argh, that could be. But our kernel is a custom built rpm, > > You have a bug for Fedora there, in the core file by readelf -l: > Program Headers: > Type Offset VirtAddr PhysAddr FileSiz MemSiz Flg Align > [...] > LOAD 0x1933000 0xa7703000 0x00000000 0x00000 0x174000 R E 0x1000 > ^^^^^^^ > There is normally 0x1000 on x86* Fedora kernels due to: > $ cat /proc/self/coredump_filter > 00000033 > > /usr/share/doc/kernel-doc-*/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt > - (bit 4) ELF header pages in file-backed private memory areas (it is > effective only if the bit 2 is cleared) > > This way build-id for the executable and shared libraries is dumped in the > core file but it is missing in this OLPC kernel. Fedora GDB has not yet > upstreamed patch for build-id which did not expect such core files. > > Going to push a fix for F-15+ but F-14 is EOLed, you can either use FSF GDB or > patch Fedora GDB by this patch or use F-15+ GDB etc. > > That backtrace of "core.522" FYI is at: > http://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/sandisk.bt > > > Thanks, > Jan > > --- gdb-7.2/gdb/solib-svr4.c.orig 2012-03-17 09:39:54.874090162 +0100 > +++ gdb-7.2/gdb/solib-svr4.c 2012-03-17 09:42:12.561810807 +0100 > @@ -1202,14 +1202,30 @@ svr4_current_sos (void) > } > else > { > - struct build_id *build_id; > + struct build_id *build_id = NULL; > > strncpy (new->so_original_name, buffer, SO_NAME_MAX_PATH_SIZE - 1); > new->so_original_name[SO_NAME_MAX_PATH_SIZE - 1] = '\0'; > /* May get overwritten below. */ > strcpy (new->so_name, new->so_original_name); > > - build_id = build_id_addr_get (LM_DYNAMIC_FROM_LINK_MAP (new)); > + /* In the case the main executable was found according to its > + build-id (from a core file) prevent loading a different build > + of a library with accidentally the same SO_NAME. > + > + It suppresses bogus backtraces (and prints "??" there instead) > + if the on-disk files no longer match the running program > + version. > + > + If the main executable was not loaded according to its > + build-id do not do any build-id checking of the libraries. > + There may be missing build-ids dumped in the core file and we > + would map all the libraries to the only existing file loaded > + that time - the executable. */ > + > + if (symfile_objfile != NULL > + && (symfile_objfile->flags & OBJF_BUILD_ID_CORE_LOADED) != 0) > + build_id = build_id_addr_get (LM_DYNAMIC_FROM_LINK_MAP (new)); > if (build_id != NULL) > { > char *name, *build_id_filename; > @@ -1224,23 +1240,7 @@ svr4_current_sos (void) > xfree (name); > } > else > - { > - debug_print_missing (new->so_name, build_id_filename); > - > - /* In the case the main executable was found according to > - its build-id (from a core file) prevent loading > - a different build of a library with accidentally the > - same SO_NAME. > - > - It suppresses bogus backtraces (and prints "??" there > - instead) if the on-disk files no longer match the > - running program version. */ > - > - if (symfile_objfile != NULL > - && (symfile_objfile->flags > - & OBJF_BUILD_ID_CORE_LOADED) != 0) > - new->so_name[0] = 0; > - } > + debug_print_missing (new->so_name, build_id_filename); > > xfree (build_id_filename); > xfree (build_id); > > -- > devel mailing list > devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com martin(a)laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff

1 0

Re: Debuginfo package for Python-2.7 on F14 mismatched or (l)user error?
by Martin Langhoff 16 Mar '12

16 Mar '12

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> And both machines pass rpm -Va just fine. So the binaries should, um, >> be the same. > + >> It is a core from yesterday, > > There can be difference one of the machines has the files prelink-ed while the > other one does not. prelink runs nightly (/etc/cron.daily/prelink). But it Thanks! Prelink is not involved -- I doublechecked. In OLPC builds, we currently don't prelink due to http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/10898 , we just don't install prelink and don't run it during OS image creation. Even back then when we did, we disabled the cronjob :-) > should be already fixed in your GDB version gdb-7.2-52.fc14, You got that one right :-) > If it helps please contact me off-list, with your disk image. It assumes the > system generating the core file was not prelinked. Uploading at http://dev.laptop.org/~martin/os5rw-brokenimg/Sandisk_1200908562DEN.img Bear in mind - that'll contain 2 partitions. The 2nd partition is / but our initrd mounts it, and then chroots into a subdirectory. So when you mount it, you'll want too look into /versions/run/5/ (WTF is this? Root FS "snapshots" via hardlinked trees. Until we have btrfs running on these puppies, it's the best update fail-proof mechanism we have.) > That missing file: > Missing separate debuginfo for > Try: yum --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo='*-debuginfo' install /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/63/420e48a2edbae61166c708ebd2ff1a5aed1054 > > is probably for kernel vDSO (as its name is empty), therefore kernel rpm. Argh, that could be. But our kernel is a custom built rpm, and we don't build -debuginfo. Here, have a fistful of my freshly-torn-out hair. Now, at the time of this segfault, the dmesg reports a segfault in python2.7, inside calls to glib... (1) why are we then in the kernel and (2) why isn't gdb telling us anything about the python/glib part of the callstack? still confused - martin PS: On a different investigation track we think there may be some subtle/odd disk corruption that _passes_ rpm -Va and our own olpc-contents-verify, yet strikes at runtime. Could a subtly corrupt binary (ie: vmlinuz) lead here? -- martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com martin(a)laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff

1 0

Re: Debuginfo package for Python-2.7 on F14 mismatched or (l)user error?
by Martin Langhoff 15 Mar '12

15 Mar '12

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com> wrote: > All those GDB messages mean your system libraries do not match the core file. Well, that should just not be. The machine that fails, and my machine have both been installed from the same disk image, which gets written to disk with a process equivalent to dd. And both machines pass rpm -Va just fine. So the binaries should, um, be the same. > Is it a fresh core file from last hours? Is it generated on the same machine > you run GDB on? It is a core from yesterday, on a machine installed from a 'dd' disk image. The machine that fails is exactly on the opposite side of the world. dd'ing the same OS image on my machine doesn't trigger the failure. So there is something funny on the opposite side of the world. > F-14 is EOLed, its repositories incl. debuginfos are out of date Not in this case, at least yum&rpm claim that the debuginfos match. > think it matters to spend any time on F-14 at all. As I stated in my earlier email, I don't want anyone to fix F14, I don't think F14 is to blame. My questions are simpler: - Is python 2.7 debuginfo in F14 known to be good or bad? - If it's known to be good, are there any gotchas not documented in the StackTraces wikipage that could be tripping me up? cheers, m -- martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com martin(a)laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff

1 0

Debuginfo package for Python-2.7 on F14 mismatched or (l)user error?
by Martin Langhoff 15 Mar '12

15 Mar '12

Hi Fedorans, we are facing a very strange Python segfault in an OLPC build, based on F14, for XO-1.5 (I know, do you remember _that_ far ago?). The state of the OS and disk is well known, but we cannot make it happen at will. So I got my hands on a coredump, installed the exact same OS (so exact matching disk state as the machine that segfaults, same rpms, etc), and went for http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StackTraces#Obtaining_a_stack_trace_from_a_co… I've yum-installed the matching -debuginfo packages for python, glibc and glib (apparently the segfault is calling glib). Running gdb over the core, it complains: "the .dynamic section for "/usr/lib/python2.7 is not at the expected address", and suggests a yum install (of /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/<identifier>) that fails. Full error msg from gdb at http://fpaste.org/YqGv/ I can see that some packages have invalid debuginfo subpackages (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_deb…) , but given Python's importance to the Fedora stack, my bet is that Python's debuginfo is fine, and there's a subtle user error in the middle... To be clear -- we don't suspect Python or the Fedora stack. But something is rotten, and this segfault is the only clue we have. This problem is fairly important for the OLPC team at this time, help on this track appreciated. m -- martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com martin(a)laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff

1 0

12.1.0 devel build 3 released, for XO-1.5 and XO-1
by Peter Robinson 13 Mar '12

13 Mar '12

The "It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life and I'm...." release. THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT RELEASE AIMED AT CORE SUGAR/DEVICE DEVELOPERS This is the first build with support for gtk3 activies and we have lovely examples with working Browse and Read :-D Other than that we have the usual rawhide updates including various bits we need for sugar gtk3 including fixes in the gtk3 css themes and various fixes and improvements for introspection support. Some other improvements include for this round of rawhide updates include libpng 1.5 which should include some perf improvements. With the festive period coming to a close the next month will ramp up rawhide changes. The big one being gcc 4.7.0 due to hit in the coming week or so with a mass rebuild following soon after. Some of the details of this release are: - Fedora rawhide (it will become Fedora 17) - Sugar 0.95.3 - sugar-toolkit-gtk3 - Browse 130... webkit based and it works! - Read 94.... and it works! - gnome 3.3.3 - likely a lot of other bits I've missed Download from: http://build.laptop.org/12.1.0/os3/

2 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

olpc March 2012