Hi, to be honest I haven't even evaluated alternative distributions because I don't think we would have enough resources to do it anyway. We are making minor changes to olpc-os-builder, rewriting it for another distribution would be a lot of work.
On 12 May 2014 20:11, Jon Nettleton <jon.nettle...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > things are looking good so far, we already have all the models booting > into > > sugar 0.101 with wif apparentlyi working. I would like to take a step > back > > and understand a bit better where we want to go with this. Some random > > thoughts and questions. > > > > * To really understand how much work is left I think we need some good > > testing, especially on the hardware related bits. I expect there will be > > lots of small things to fix, but it would be good to understand as early > as > > possible if there are roadblocks. I'm a bad tester and I've never used > the > > XO much, so I'm often not sure what is a regression and what is not... > thus > > helping with this would be particularly appreciated. > > * Which deployments are planning to ship 0.102 soon and hence are > interested > > in this work? I know of AU. Maybe Uruguay? > > * Do we need to support all the XO models? > > * Should we contribute the olpc-os-builder changes back to OLPC or fork > it? > > I don't know if OLPC will do any active development on the linux side of > > things, if not maybe better to turn this into a sugarlabs thing. > > * Are interested deployments using olpc-update? If I'm not mistake AU is > > not. > > * Do we care about maintaining the GNOME "dual boot"? I'm afraid we do, > but > > I want to make sure. > > * As I mentioned in some other thread I'm interested in setting up > automated > > builds from sugar master. I have some vague plan of what it would look > like > > and wrote bits of it. The basic idea is that you would push changes to > > github and get images automatically built. I think this is good for > upstream > > testing but the same infrastructure could be used by deployments. Are > people > > interested in using this? > > Why is all this work being put into Fedora 20? The maintenance window > is limited and as of the next release they won't even support non-KMS > drivers by default. Wouldn't make sense to look into a distribution > that provides and LTS release? Resources already seem to be limited > so having to chase after Fedora every 6 months to a year seems like a > waste of resources. The GTK3 and GNOME teams obviously have their > eyes on a different class of hardware than what is being used by > deployments. > > -Jon > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
