Hi Scott,
This is another talk I'd really rather someone else give, but I can
give a brief talk on our current status problems desires if it is
helpful.
OLPC has forks of a number of Fedora packages, for a number of
reasons. We've been trying to keep better track of the what why, at
This worked (discovery) at one point (I tried it very early in OLPC
days).
But printer discovery is better done by some other mechanism than that
defined in IPP anyway, which is stupid broadcast. Even MDNS is less
evil (e.g. avahi).
Some work is probably needed for scaling of printer
can's mdns/avahi help with discovery? it'd be a shame to have to
manually configure a server address or name.
DNS-SD is the Right Answer (which is not exactly the same thing as
mdns). But getting a standard one school server, and a classroom of
XOs solution in place for 9.1 using a
is there a plan to start up joyride again so we can (somewhat more
easily) test this stuff out? Or is that waiting till after
XOcamp2? Did I maybe miss the email thread about this?
Joyride's back now. joyride-2520 contains the queued-up userspace
changes, and joyride-2521 is the
I would like to put the current 8.2
release onto an SD card for booting
(with a developer's key) to allow
me to better support my family and
friends XOs.
Right now, any customizations such
as printer support or additional
applications get wiped whenever there
is an os update.
The
-sugar 0.82.9-1.fc10
+sugar 0.83.2-1.olpc4
-sugar-artwork 0.82.3-1.fc10
+sugar-artwork 0.83.1-1.olpc4
-sugar-base 0.82.2-1.fc10
+sugar-base 0.83.1-1.olpc4
-sugar-datastore 0.8.3-2.fc10
+sugar-datastore 0.83.0-1.olpc4
-sugar-presence-service 0.82.2-1.fc10
+sugar-presence-service
Is there a reason the new sugar can't go upstream into F-10?
It's very unstable code and contains several big regressions, as of today.
F-10 being on feature freeze, I guess it won't be allowed in.
For distro packaging, we should focus only on the stable release
branches: 0.82.x, and once
Is there a reason the new sugar can't go upstream into F-10?
It's very unstable code and contains several big regressions, as of today.
F-10 being on feature freeze, I guess it won't be allowed in.
For distro packaging, we should focus only on the stable release
branches: 0.82.x, and once
For distro packaging, we should focus only on the stable release
branches: 0.82.x, and once it's out next year, 0.84.x.
That said, we might package 0.83.x releases in debian unstable and
thus ubuntu jaunty with a view to landing 0.84 without a large delta
when it does release, because that
That said, we might package 0.83.x releases in debian unstable and
thus ubuntu jaunty with a view to landing 0.84 without a large delta
when it does release, because that might be after the ubuntu feature
freeze.
Cool, so sounds like something that will eventually be good to get
into
Not sure but I'll add it to my list. The other thought that had come
to mind. Is there a plan for this release to move from gnome-vfs to
gio/gvfs (does OLPC even use it?).
It feel off the radar but it's a good idea. Should be easy because we
don't use gnome-vfs that much. A ticket on
Hi All,
I've started looking through the various packages that have been
pulled into joyride as part of the upgrade to Fedora-10 and reviewing
packages to see what differs from upstream, 8.2 and various other
olpcX packages. I'm aware of a number of packages that have been
pulled in due to
Hi All,
Adding a fixed build koji details for olpc-utils and adding
fedora-olpc list to the mail. (oh and fixed some copy/paste bits! :)
Cheers,
Peter
I've started looking through the various packages that have been
pulled into joyride as part of the upgrade to Fedora-10 and reviewing
also notice that the Size delta on the 8.2 vs joyride build is
reporting 0meg difference which is clearly rubbish :-) Can someone fix
it for me please. The URL I'm referring to is
http://dev.laptop.org/~rwh/announcer/joyride_vs_8.2.html
This one works:
I've started looking through the various packages that have been
pulled into joyride as part of the upgrade to Fedora-10 and reviewing
packages to see what differs from upstream, 8.2 and various other
olpcX packages. I'm aware of a number of packages that have been
pulled in due to
Inlined below but the problem we have at the moment with things pretty
locked down in preparation for Fedora-10 final the changes and fixes
we get in are being held in the updates queue (like the ones I fixed
yesterday).
Don't let this slow you down. Tag your packages as dist-olpc4. I just
Inlined below but the problem we have at the moment with things pretty
locked down in preparation for Fedora-10 final the changes and fixes
we get in are being held in the updates queue (like the ones I fixed
yesterday).
Don't let this slow you down. Tag your packages as dist-olpc4. I just
Hi All,
Looking further at the issues with joyride in particular the
following 3 packages:
ntpdate
olpcsound
olpc-logos
Looking at the output of the pilgrim build logs [1] I see the following errors:
Setting up Install Process
Parsing package install arguments
No package olpc-logos
please untag it. it will be picked up through regular inheritance. by
having
it tagged any fedora updates will not get picked up automatically.
Hmm, then perhaps I should undo what I did yesterday (tagged 3
packages in the f10-updates queue for quicker joyride inclusion).
Those would
Hi All,
Looking further at the issues with joyride in particular the
following 3 packages:
ntpdate
olpcsound
olpc-logos
Looking at the output of the pilgrim build logs [1] I see the following
errors:
Setting up Install Process
Parsing package install arguments
No package
Hi All,
Quick query on the libertas-usb8388-firmware package. Is the firmware
version dependent on the kernel version or anything else?
The reason I ask is that the version in joyride is
2:5.110.22.p18-1.olpc2 from the old olpc2 branch and the one in Fedora
mainline is 2:5.110.22.p14-1.fc10. So
.
The current recommended firmware release is 22.p18.
Cheers!
Ricardo Carrano
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Quick query on the libertas-usb8388-firmware package. Is the firmware
version dependent on the kernel version or anything else?
The reason
So is there a reason p20 isn't in use? Or is there no requirement for
the features/fixes it has?
p20 does not fix bugs and its new features are currently under test
and development (on the driver side). So, the recommended version is
still p18.
Cool, sounds like it might be a test case for
And maybe remove some of the obstacles in future releases (a disk
image with headroom and a standard kernel would be simple to do and go
a long way).
Nice work.
Well once qemu 0.9.2 is out the '-cpu athlon' emulation option should
allow a standard joyride or 8.2 image to run easily on most
I don't understand that comment. What several efforts are you talking
about? I don't think there were several efforts to publicize this outage -
if so, the scope of those efforts wasn't sufficient IMHO.
Wouldn't a central location like an outages or maintenance mailing
list for all those
* So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND?
GS - Yes.
Why are we planning on shipping two distros? Or am I missing
something? As OLPC is essentially based on Fedora and isn't that
divergent (and we're trying to make is less so) would we not be aiming
for two different desktop
is xfce the right choice? i know it's easy, but we should be
sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a
relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it
feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best
judge. :-)
I agree that
is xfce the right choice? i know it's easy, but we should be
sure it's correct. (i've been using it on my own xo, in a
relatively unsophisticated way, but in the end that only makes it
feel like an unsophisticated interface, so i may not be the best
judge. :-)
I agree
http://xs-dev.laptop.org/~cscott/olpc/streams/joyride/build2578
Changes in build 2578 from build: 2577
Size delta: 0.00M
-pygobject2 2.15.4-3.fc10
+pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.1
--- Changes for pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.1 from 2.15.4-3.fc10 ---
+ Experimental; fix PySignal_SetWakeupFd()
-pygobject2 2.15.4-3.fc10
+pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.1
--- Changes for pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.1 from 2.15.4-3.fc10 ---
+ Experimental; fix PySignal_SetWakeupFd() semantics to reduce wakeups
Is there an upstream bug for this?
Working downstream at http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/4680 and
Build Announcer v2 wrote:
-libraw1394 2.0.0-4.fc10
+libraw1394 2.0.0-5.fc10
For all those XO's with firewire ports...
(cups was also on the list. I don't know if that's deliberate or not.)
Cups is being pulled in by libgnome which is due to xulrunner, but
with the talk of printing it will
The I accidentally an entire call *and* MUC release.
Tarball:
http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/releases/telepathy-gabble/telepathy-gabble-0.7.17.tar.gz
Signature:
http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/releases/telepathy-gabble/telepathy-gabble-0.7.17.tar.gz.asc
Git repository:
F-10 doesn't have dbus-glib 0.78, only 0.76 so I can't add this to
joyride yet. Do we want an OLPC-4 branch for dbus-glib to handle this?
I think we can wait that the updated package reach F-10.
Collabora, is this relevant to OLPC? If not, we can hold off on
packaging this for now, but if
Hi,
* yum groupinstall GNOME Desktop Environment
I gave this a try with latest Joyride (2592), and get a couple of
depsolving problems. Maybe one of the RPM ninjas on fedora-olpc-list
could take a look at how we could resolve these? Alternatively, maybe
we should be hand-picking the
Hi Paul,
I mean slimmed down Fedora (probably shouldn't even call it Fedora at that
point) plus Gnome, KDE of XFCE window manager. Is that precise enough?
If its as easy as yum install gnome on top of 8.2.0 image, that would be
great!
It should be that simple with some caveats. well
The hard part will come when we need to pick the bare minimum set of
functionality. I especially want to know what additional
libraries/RPMs/features we need to install beyond what we alrady have in
XO 8.2.0.
I have been quite frustrated with the Fedora toolset in this regard.
Getting a
+sugar-base 0.83.2-2.olpc4
Good to see this up-leveled -- the previous version of this package
as distributed in Joyride was more than a month old.
However, that still leaves several packages which appear to be more
recent in 'olpc3' than in 'olpc4'. Output of 'yum check-update' :
|
Size delta: 0.00M
-cronie 1.2-4.fc10
+cronie 1.2-7.fc10
-perl 4:5.10.0-51.fc10
+perl 4:5.10.0-52.fc10
-perl-Module-Pluggable 1:3.60-51.fc10
+perl-Module-Pluggable 1:3.60-52.fc10
-perl-Pod-Escapes 1:1.04-51.fc10
+perl-Pod-Escapes 1:1.04-52.fc10
-perl-Pod-Simple 1:3.07-51.fc10
swfdec{,-mozilla} use gstreamer, are LGPLed, and support most of the
Flash 9 features whereas gnash supports only a few of the Flash 9
features. swfdec is also the default Flash player on Fedora, and is
the preferred flash player on Ubuntu.
Quick clarification. We discussed making swfdec
Hi Greg,
Sorry for delayed response, I've had little internet connectivity so
have only had limited mail access and mostly through a windows box :(
I'm still looking for help resolving the dependencies Chris found when he
tried to install Gnome.
The issue and thread are documented in the
Hi Greg,
Sorry for delayed response, I've had little internet connectivity so
have only had limited mail access and mostly through a windows box :(
I'm still looking for help resolving the dependencies Chris found when he
tried to install Gnome.
The issue and thread are documented in the
Hi Chris,
I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or
even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed
up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl from the Fedora repos
anyway?
I've just pushed a patch to pilgrim's joyride branch to
I'm not sure if it was considered, but as the maintainer of swfdec in
Fedora I can state that swfdec is very cpu-intensive, and I have my
doubts whether the performance on the XO would be comparable to gnash's,
though it might be worth investigating.
That has been my experience too, but I
The main problem [with gnash on OLPC] I've had so far is getting the
Gstreamer Ugly plugins set (non-FOSS plugins, including the MP3
decoder) installed properly on XO 8.2.0 via Yum because the
Gstreamer in 8.2.0's repository is some kind of mishmash from the
older Fedora 8 version, not the
It may be feasible to do this on Fedora, but it is not yet feasible on
Ubuntu. Sugar doesn't do anything interesting there because the networking
is broken. (They are working on it and the problem might be solved in a
test version, but it isn't feasible for someone who just wants to use
Hi All,
olpcupdate doesn't seem to be in Fedora mainline, and I don't see a
review request for it either. Is there a reason for this? If so could
the maintainer (or someone who knows) organise that to happen? I can
then review the package and help to get it into Fedora 10 and it can
be crossed
Hi Chris,
I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or
even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed
up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl from the Fedora repos
anyway?
I've just pushed a patch to pilgrim's joyride branch to
-pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.2
+pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.3
Does anyone know off the top of their head the reason for this fork
from mainline Fedora?
Peter
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I think
there are significant differences in system resource consumption.
I don't believe the decision has been made yet.
I ask because the impression I had from informal tests was that a system
booting into GNOME was consuming
Hi Chris,
How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised
that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd
requirements.
Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GConf2-dbus,
both ship the same .mo files) and evince (against sugar-evince,
Hi Chris,
For the evince vs sugar-evince I suspect we need to try and get the
mainline evince split out into evince and evince-libs so that we
can build sugar-evince against it similar to what we do with
abiword and write (I think that's its name).
Yep, sounds good.
When I get
Does pilgrim (Puritan?) use kickstart like files?
Nope.
If not, why do we not create builds using what seems to be fedora's
standard build system?
The short answer is that there has never been consensus among the people
dealing with OLPC's builds that anaconda was the right tool for the
I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE
interface. Why I haven't pursued it yet is because the API for
developing new gio backends is still private and our new backend would
then need to live inside the gvfs gnome module or as a patch in every
distro. Aside from
For the evince vs sugar-evince I suspect we need to try and get the
mainline evince split out into evince and evince-libs so that we
can build sugar-evince against it similar to what we do with
abiword and write (I think that's its name).
Yep, sounds good.
When I get a sec I'll
There's a discussion going on right now at FUDCon with gregdek and cjb
running down the 20 or so forked packages and smoothing out how to
merge them back in. So there should be helpful updates soon.
Don't forget that we have not yet forked F10 to the extent that we did
F9 to get rid of
I see two classes of forks
1. forks to use different compile/packaging options to eliminate
dependancies
2. forks to change the code (adding functionality in particular)
I'm not _that_ interested in #1, but am very interested in #2, especially
anything done to make things work with the XO
I don't think there are any other than the kernel that are forked for
hardware issues, and the stock Fedora i386 kernel will work with the
XO but the likes of numerous ethernet/storage drivers, ISA, MCA, Token
Ring and the like are of little use for the device :-) . There use to
be a HW issue
I don't think there are any other than the kernel that are forked for
hardware issues, and the stock Fedora i386 kernel will work with the
XO but the likes of numerous ethernet/storage drivers, ISA, MCA, Token
Ring and the like are of little use for the device :-) . There use to
be a HW issue
1. forks to use different compile/packaging options to eliminate
dependancies
2. forks to change the code (adding functionality in particular)
I'm not _that_ interested in #1, but am very interested in #2, especially
anything done to make things work with the XO hardware.
I don't think
Just thought I'd post my understanding of where the packages are at
based on the list that was created at FUDCon
For reference see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC/Packages_for_F11
Also there's the OLPCDelta tracking bug in RHBZ 462625 for quick
tracking of the ones I'm aware of.
KOJI
Just thought I'd post my understanding of where the packages are at
based on the list that was created at FUDCon
For reference see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC/Packages_for_F11
Also there's the OLPCDelta tracking bug in RHBZ 462625 for quick
tracking of the ones I'm aware of.
KOJI
sugar-evince - Probably need to get evince split into evince-libs and
evince so that sugar-evince can build against evince-libs. Not sure if
there's plans to get sugar-evince upstreamed for easy maintenance
Yesterday was working in upstreaming our patches. I really really hope
that we can
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 05:15, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
- xulrunner and the OLPC patches (currently using mainline Fedora
package) - Mario Simon
I have seen that in trunk the native theme can
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
sugar-evince - Probably need to get evince split into evince-libs and
evince so that sugar-evince can build against evince-libs. Not sure if
there's plans to get sugar-evince upstreamed for easy maintenance
Yesterday
- xulrunner and the OLPC patches (currently using mainline Fedora
package) - Mario Simon
I have seen that in trunk the native theme can be enabled and disabled
in runtime, so that would be one patch less. I'm not 100% sure it got
into 1.9.1, though.
Do you know if there's a upstream
Tarball:
http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/releases/telepathy-gabble/telepathy-gabble-0.7.17.tar.gz
Signature:
http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/releases/telepathy-gabble/telepathy-gabble-0.7.17.tar.gz.asc
Git repository:
git://git.collabora.co.uk/git/telepathy-gabble.git
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
Hi All,
I wanted to put it to the lists and get some feedback, with the plans
on basing the 9.1.0 release on Fedora 11 I think we need to have a
testing stream based on rawhide so that we can start testing core OS
related bits and dealing with them sooner rather than later.
My thoughts are that
Hi Chris,
I wanted to put it to the lists and get some feedback, with the
plans on basing the 9.1.0 release on Fedora 11 I think we need to
have a testing stream based on rawhide so that we can start testing
core OS related bits and dealing with them sooner rather than
later.
Hi Greg,
Thanks for poking :)
After a brief discussion with Jeremy, it appears that Fedora 11 in rawhide
has had many boot issues on many platforms, and they're tackling them one by
one. He promises to have a look at OLPC specifically on Friday.
Excellent news. In the mean time, even with
Hi All,
I've never used the mesh before so I'm not 100% on how it works...
In Sugar 0.84, will mesh at least be disabled, from the point of view
of Ohm and the kernel, so that the WiFi chip can be powered down when
it's not in use for WiFi?
To me, one of the most attractive points about the
Hi All,
Tiago Marques wrote:
That software is still not compiled for the Geode LX, which further
slows it down.
As you say, everything uses CPU on the Geode. Things like
decompressing can be made, probably, a lot faster just by using compiler
optimizations. Has this been considered in
Hi All,
I noticed that quite a few organisations are starting to ramp up for
GSOC and getting people to start thinking about proposals etc. Not
sure if OLPC/Sugar are planning on participating but if so it might be
worthwhile to start to get people thinking about what needs to be done
etc.
or just run other distros (like many of us are doing)
however, even those of us who run other distros (and see the differences)
would like to see the Sugar 'distro' improve.
The sugar distro is basically Fedora, with a few modifications for
things like the security that OLPC uses. Sugar is
The sugar distro is basically Fedora, with a few modifications for
things like the security that OLPC uses. Sugar is actually the GUI
that sits on top of the distro.
yes, but those modifications are significant. I know that Sugar is the name
of the GUI, but there are still things that don't
I disagree. There is no clutter now, and concentrating all the XO
hardware related discussions here is very valuable. Splitting by
distribution would halt collaboration.
I'd go further and say that things are already too fragmented. the fact
that the DebXO maintainer didn't know that much
I just measured the time taken by the boot animation by the simple
technique of renaming /usr/bin/rhgb-client so the initscripts can't find it.
how did you measure exactly? stopwatch? I'd like to recreate the
tests. It sounds like you did this on a freshly flashed system?
There were a
I had thought this capability would be coming with
the Fedora 10 move in 9.1.0. With that release now
scuttled, I'm wondering more generally, are these
pieces being picked up anywhere?
Well its not really scuttled, there will still be a equivalent release
at around the time that 9.1.0 was
To me, Bitfrost was just one more lofty windmill OLPC tried to tilt because
it seemed like an interesting challenge. I'm not clear why Sugar needs more
protection from rogue activities than a normal desktop environment has from
rogue applications.
Reinventing the desktop as a constructivist
Agreed. However, I believe you can claim reliable WPA2 support, as
the WPA2 handshake doesn't have this timing vulnerability.
Have not tested extensively, but my experience was that WPA2 was very
reliable.
Yes, my experience is also that WPA2 is more reliable. However, don't
forget that
Hi Chris,
I've gone through what's been pulling in the perl dependency and
narrowed down the packages that are dependant on it to the following
list. There's a number of easy fix ones and two that I need to dig
further on. The first four should be a matter of just blocking them
out of the
Hi Chris,
I've gone through what's been pulling in the perl dependency and
narrowed down the packages that are dependant on it to the following
list. There's a number of easy fix ones and two that I need to dig
further on. The first four should be a matter of just blocking them
out of the
Hi Chris,
I've gone through what's been pulling in the perl dependency and
narrowed down the packages that are dependant on it to the following
list. There's a number of easy fix ones and two that I need to dig
further on. The first four should be a matter of just blocking them
out of the
As another follow up to this the gnome-python2-evince package (needed
from sugar-read) incorrectly required evince-devel which in turn pulls
in a chunk of the devel stack plus perl, I've filed RH bug 490112 to
get this fixed so hopefully it should be done before too long. If you
think its
i'm sure rawhide will gain a power management solution of some
sort. probably ohmd will be added. i wouldn't be surprised if
olpc-kbdshim and olpc-powerd would work fine as well, but if
you'd like to test that to confirm it, i wouldn't object. ;-)
Rawhide status:
thanks
Hi All,
I know that olpcsound was originally a fork of csound for olpc. I
noticed just now on the sugarlabs page for the 0.84 release [1] that
it depends on csound 5.08/5.10 and makes no mention of olpcsound. Does
that mean that olpcsound is now obsolete and that once we get csound
in Fedora
Hi All,
Does anyone have a link to the kernel src rpm that's used for what was
the latest joyride kernel or the equivalent thereof?
Peter
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
not like to
move from olpcsound to csound 5.03, though.
olpcsound is not a fork, it is based on the same sources as Csound5, with
less components and dependencies. It is just a build option (for scons).
Victor
- Original Message -
From: Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com
Date
.)
Regards
Victor
- Original Message -
From: Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:17 am
Subject: Re: csound vs olpcsound
To: victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie
Cc: OLPC Developer's List devel@lists.laptop.org
Hi Victor,
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I
This looks quite interesting. Have you looked at what Fedora is
introducing with DeviceKit-power and fellows in Fedora 11. It would be
interesting to see the similarities in features to help minimise
duplication of effort and to piggy back off Redhat's development
resources. They are using it to
The Fedora F11 beta announcement is here
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg02103.html
Peter
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Carol Farlow Lerche c...@msbit.com wrote:
Chris, are there release notes somewhere?
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Chris Ball
and if so what version?
Does wifi definition work in the sugar gui? That stuff.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
The Fedora F11 beta announcement is here
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg02103.html
Peter
On Fri, Apr 3
It is as far as I'm aware plain rawhide which means it will be sugar
0.84 with default Fedora power stuff using the new devicekit [1]. All
the hardware should work as expected and if it doesn't please report
it, either here or in the Fedora Bugzilla.
i don't understand. wasn't there
i don't understand. wasn't there just a thread yesterday or the
day before about how there are major XO-specific pieces (e.g.
suspend/resume, the dcon driver) missing from the fedora kernel?
what do you mean by hardware should work as expected?
Yes. This isn't a joyride
From the Fedora perspective this is the latest beta release
Is this statement meant to be equivalent to this is the latest F11
beta?
Now I read it, a fairly pointless statement should have coffee
_BEFORE_ replying to emails in the morning.
It has all the latest Sugar stuff in it but
Hi Chris,
Out of interest does OFW support ext4? I've tried today to get a SD
card to boot using your image with no luck, but shoved a usb key in
that has the standard F11 beta on it and the kernel booted straight up
but got no further.
Peter
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Chris Ball
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Martin Dengler
mar...@martindengler.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 01:43:07PM +0100, Martin Dengler wrote:
- network frame icon still blank (I think for the same reason as
http://dev.sugarlabs.org/ticket/307 )
- some WPA (1) networks unable to be
Hi All,
Just looking at the pyxapian package in Fedora. Its only even been
used in the OLPC-2 cvs branch. There is no build in mainline fedora
branches. Is it still used? According to the pyxapian site its been
obsoleted/replaced by xappy. So i'm just wondering if its still used
in OLPC 80x
Hi All,
I thought now that we're getting closer to the Fedora 11 freeze it
would be a good time for everyone to where they're at as we move
towards F-11/9.1.0/olpc-next.
I've been keeping the wiki page up to date as I go along and filling
in more details as I find out about them. The fixed list
Over the last few weeks there's been growing interest in using the
support for HTML5's Canvas present in Browse.xo. A very quick test
felt fairly slow, but Alex and his colleagues are interested in
studying, profiling and working towards a solution.
So here's some notes I've collected for
1 - 100 of 601 matches
Mail list logo
