Oops XO-2 should say XO 1.5, my bad. On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Kevin Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Folks: > > Wasn't really complaining. Just wanted upstream people to know in case > they were interested. > > For clarity, The 686 8n-1 openssl gets installed on both the XO-1 and the > XO-1.5. After a fresh install: > > Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-1 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but > installs the 586 version > Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-2 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but > installs the 686 version > > In our deployments we always try to do it in two steps, a yum update > download-only to an SD card, then yum localinstall from the card, to save > internet usage. > > In this two-step localinstall scenario, the XO-1 updated chosen (586) > actually refuses to update the installed older, but 686, version. > > On the XO 1.5, there is no issue - the 686 8n-2 updates the installed 686 > 8n-1 > > Peter, absoulutely the right rpm switches can be used instead of yum to get > the desired one there when not doing a direct update. The other yum methods > are dangerous or ineffective since on the XO-1,a yum reinstall wont pick up > the original package, and a vanilla yum remove would delete about 3.5 > million dependencies. That said, if I copy the 686 8n-2 rpm over to the XO-1 > downloaded updates on the SD, when doing the localinstall, it works fine. > > So, I am not complaining, I was more or less curious as to why a 686 was in > there at all, since all the rest of the stuff int the package list seems to > be 586, and there is a 586 openssl available. Perhaps, I too much love > simplicity :-) > > But, in conclusion, I'm all good here. If there is a specific bias for one > or the other (586 or 686) package, just let me know and I can make both the > XO-1 and the XO 1.5 happy with that version. > > PS: Martin, we haven't deployed 852 in Kenya so I hadn't seen this before > in 10.1.2. We'll be upgrading them all from a mixed XO-1 set of 711 and > 802; and the 1.5's with 205/206 both of which never had the 686 installed. > So, in preparation of when we go back in March, we're working with > 10.1.3/3xx assuming that it will be the new signed build generation. > > Cheers, > > KG > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Peter Robinson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Martin Langhoff >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Kevin Gordon <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Any reason that the openssl 0.9.8n-1.fc11 is of the 686 architecture as >> >> bundled in the os360 packages? Causes a bit of grief on localinstalls >> and >> > >> > This was also on 10.1.2 as can be seen in the link below . The >> > compaints are bogus my understanding is that -- Fedora keeps its i686 >> > builds compatible with Geode. Why is yum getting confused I dunno -- >> > perhaps it's reading the kernel uname. On XO-1 builds, the kernel is >> > i586. >> > >> > >> http://download.laptop.org/xo-1.5/os/official/os852/4GB/os852.packages.txt >> > >> > cheers, >> >> I don't think the change to the rpm arch file that made geode i686 >> capable was made until post F-11 (F-12 from mem) so I think you need >> to add a command to rpm to use the i686 version or install the >> i586/i386 variant. >> >> Peter >> > >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
