New XO-1 10.1.2 build 300

[Chris Ball]

http://build.laptop.org/10.1.2/xo-1/os300/

Here's the first build in our 10.1.2 F11/XO-1 release stream, as
promised yesterday.  Thanks to Daniel Drake for working on getting
this started!

This is an unsigned build, so to install it you need to:

 ok copy-nand u:\os300.img

with the os300.img and os300.crc files on a USB stick.

Please test and report bugs!

Thanks,

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb(a)laptop.org&gt;
One Laptop Per Child

[Daniel Drake]

To answer a few inevitable questions:

This is F11 + Sugar 0.84 + GNOME 2.26, for XO-1.

It's unsigned, meaning that you need a developer key to install it. I
think OLPC will start producing signed betas soon.

It's similar to recent builds made by Steven Parrish, and the 0.84
variant of the Paraguayan builds, the main differences are that a few
more bugs have been fixed, and that everything comes from official
OLPC RPM repositories and osbuilder, making it easier for deployers in
other places. One of the bigger changes is the readdition of mesh
support in sugar.

It's particularly significant because (when the release goes final) it
means we have synchronized software between XO-1 and XO-1.5.

In terms of bugs I've been working here:
http://dev.laptop.org/milestone/1.0-software-update

Even though its similar to the versions that many have already been
testing, this would benefit from some fresh testing with the mindset
of it being an upgrade on top of OLPC OS 8.2.1 build 802.

I feel that this version is almost ready for release, but am eager to
see if other people can find new problems.

It is being built with olpc-os-builder from git, using configuration
examples/olpc-os-10.1.2-xo1.ini (see
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OSBuilder )

Daniel

[Daniel Drake]

If anyone is in a power-measuring mode, it would be nice to measure
the power usage when the Record activity is active and displaying the
live feed, and compare it to measurements of the same situation on
8.2.1 build 802.

We have halved the amount of data coming from the camera which will
hopefully have an effect on power consumption.

Daniel

[Martin Langhoff]

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd(a)laptop.org&gt; wrote:
>  It's particularly significant because (when the release goes
> final) it
>  means we have synchronized software between XO-1 and XO-1.5. 
Are we aiming for a "synchronised" 10.1.2 for XO-1 and XO-1.5?

If this is just for xo1, 10.1.1-xo1 might be a better moniker...

[ I am still eyeing some bugs -- ie: screen rotation -- for a 10.1.2 ... ]

cheers,


m
-- 
 martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
 martin(a)laptop.org -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff

[Peter Robinson]

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Martin Langhoff
<martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd(a)laptop.org&gt;
> wrote:
> > It's particularly significant because (when the release goes final) it
> > means we have synchronized software between XO-1 and XO-1.5.
>
>  Are we aiming for a "synchronised" 10.1.2 for XO-1 and XO-1.5? 
Yes, see the email from chris about the software announcements.

Peter

[Chris Ball]

Hi,

>  Are we aiming for a "synchronised" 10.1.2 for XO-1 and
> XO-1.5? 
Yep.  See yesterday's announcement for more wording.

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb(a)laptop.org&gt;
One Laptop Per Child

[James Cameron]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>  On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd(a)laptop.org&gt;
> wrote:
>  > It's particularly significant because (when the release goes final) it
>  > means we have synchronized software between XO-1 and XO-1.5.
>  
>  Are we aiming for a "synchronised" 10.1.2 for XO-1 and XO-1.5?
>  If this is just for xo1, 10.1.1-xo1 might be a better moniker...
>  [ I am still eyeing some bugs -- ie: screen rotation -- for a 10.1.2 ... ] 
While that bug #9350 is important, I don't think it should hold up a
10.1.2 synchronised release.  If that means the XO-1.5 build number
doesn't change from os206, so be it.

(However, I'd be surprised if we didn't need to fix something on XO-1.5
to get everything working between XO-1 and XO-1.5.)

I'm easy either way; #9350 might be fixed and released in 10.1.2 or
a 10.1.3, but it would be better fixed earlier than later.  It is an
obvious regression from XO-1 to XO-1.5.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/