2:58 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:13:40PM +0100, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
Title says it all, it should be in tomorrows build.
Briefly, how do I swing across to this on an OLPC XO-1.5 that is
installed with an OLPC F11 build? (There are several problems I'm
investigating where I'd like to be able to test a much more recent
version of Sugar, and I've not set up an environment to do that in yet).
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
3:58 p.m.
James Cameron wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:13:40PM +0100, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
> Title says it all, it should be in tomorrows build.
Briefly, how do I swing across to this on an OLPC XO-1.5 that is
installed with an OLPC F11 build? (There are several problems I'm
investigating where I'd like to be able to test a much more recent
version of Sugar, and I've not set up an environment to do that in yet).
You could do something like: yum --enablerepo=rawhide update sugar*
This should work - in case it doesn't, you might need to update some
more dependencies from rawhide, too.
I'll mention that once you executed that command, it's hard to get back,
though. So it'd probably be reasonable to just reflash the XO, if things
go wrong.
--Sebastian
4:09 p.m.
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:58 +0100, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
James Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:13:40PM +0100, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
>> Title says it all, it should be in tomorrows build.
>
> Briefly, how do I swing across to this on an OLPC XO-1.5 that is
> installed with an OLPC F11 build? (There are several problems I'm
> investigating where I'd like to be able to test a much more recent
> version of Sugar, and I've not set up an environment to do that in yet).
You could do something like: yum --enablerepo=rawhide update sugar*
This should work - in case it doesn't, you might need to update some
more dependencies from rawhide, too.
I'll mention that once you executed that command, it's hard to get back,
though. So it'd probably be reasonable to just reflash the XO, if things
go wrong.
If the method suggested by Sebastian fails due to nasty dependencies,
I'd be glad to backport the 0.86 or 0.87 packages to F11 for testers
like you.
Hopefully it won't take much time, just let me know if it's needed.
--
// Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
\X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/
4:44 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 07:09:16PM -0300, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
If the method suggested by Sebastian fails due to nasty
dependencies,
I'd be glad to backport the 0.86 or 0.87 packages to F11 for testers
like you.
Hopefully it won't take much time, just let me know if it's needed.
It did indeed fail due to nasty dependencies and so I stopped
investigation. If you do what you suggest, then I'm more likely to
test.
My main reason for testing is part of diagnosis of the 0.84 problems
encountered ... if I can test 0.86 or 0.87 and say "this is fixed", then
that opens up the possibility of either backporting the fix or closing
the ticket as "solved in a later release".
There is a useful side effect of testing 0.86 or 0.87, but don't
*expect* this to occur from me until we start using those versions in a
build. ;-}
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
2:58 a.m.
New subject: [Sugar-devel] Heads Up: Sugar 0.87.4 coming to Rawhide
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 23:44, James Cameron <quozl(a)laptop.org> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 07:09:16PM -0300, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> If the method suggested by Sebastian fails due to nasty dependencies,
> I'd be glad to backport the 0.86 or 0.87 packages to F11 for testers
> like you.
>
> Hopefully it won't take much time, just let me know if it's needed.
It did indeed fail due to nasty dependencies and so I stopped
investigation. If you do what you suggest, then I'm more likely to
test.
My main reason for testing is part of diagnosis of the 0.84 problems
encountered ... if I can test 0.86 or 0.87 and say "this is fixed", then
that opens up the possibility of either backporting the fix or closing
the ticket as "solved in a later release".
There is a useful side effect of testing 0.86 or 0.87, but don't
*expect* this to occur from me until we start using those versions in a
build. ;-}
You could also try installing what will soon become Fedora 13 Alpha:
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/13-Alpha.TC2/Fedora/i386/iso/
----------
Mathieu Bridon
5185
days inactive
5189
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Bernie Innocenti -
James Cameron -
Mathieu Bridon -
Sebastian Dziallas