Re: hulahop 0.4.7 got in updates by mistake
by Peter Robinson
> 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
15 years, 3 months
Fedora on XO - Lite
by Sebastian Dziallas
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
15 years, 3 months
Tomorrow's meeting
by Greg DeKoenigsberg
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 ]]
15 years, 3 months
Re: [Sugar-devel] Soas snapshot
by Simon Schampijer
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
15 years, 3 months
Moving joyride to rawhide
by Peter Robinson
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
15 years, 3 months
Re: SoaS on the XO progress
by Sebastian Dziallas
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/
15 years, 3 months
Re: SoaS on the XO progress
by Chris Ball
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>
15 years, 3 months
