Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:00:40AM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote: Thou all this people aren't really children. Was there some rationale behind using very large icons with children age 6-12? It's not like they have worse vision than adults. I don't recall, sorry. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Fri, 04-06-2010 a las 11:00 +1000, James Cameron escribió: Does this change fix the bug? No. (But it does fix the size of icons in the activity ring). BTW, a lot of testers told me that they like the small toolbar icons of the 72dpi mode more than the old big ones. I also think it confers Sugar a more... functional look feel. Thou all this people aren't really children. Was there some rationale behind using very large icons with children age 6-12? It's not like they have worse vision than adults. I've now switched back to 100dpi, to see what the reactions are. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
Bernie 72 dpi icons looked good to me Maybe the logic of big icons was not eyesight but touchpad control? Though the target audience of the XO builds is still children 6-12, it doesnt have to restrict the audience of other Sugar builds. Sugarlabs can have a wider mission than OLPC. There are features of Sugar which should have strong 12+ appeal: show source, Pippy, TurtleArt Python extensions. I dont recall the issue of target audience ever being discussed at Sugarlabs, we kind of inherited the 6-12 mission of OLPC without further analysis. Tony El Fri, 04-06-2010 a las 11:00 +1000, James Cameron escribió: Does this change fix the bug? No. (But it does fix the size of icons in the activity ring). BTW, a lot of testers told me that they like the small toolbar icons of the 72dpi mode more than the old big ones. I also think it confers Sugar a more... functional look feel. Thou all this people aren't really children. Was there some rationale behind using very large icons with children age 6-12? It's not like they have worse vision than adults. I've now switched back to 100dpi, to see what the reactions are. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Sun, 13-06-2010 a las 08:40 +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au escribió: 72 dpi icons looked good to me Maybe the logic of big icons was not eyesight but touchpad control? Though the target audience of the XO builds is still children 6-12, it doesnt have to restrict the audience of other Sugar builds. Sugarlabs can have a wider mission than OLPC. I agree, but we constantly get told that we should be more focused, not less :-) One easy thing we could do is make the size of these UI elements scalable along with the font. I think there was some code to do it in trac, but it didn't make it in time for 0.88. There are features of Sugar which should have strong 12+ appeal: show source, Pippy, TurtleArt Python extensions. I made some high-school kids play with these and they seemed to have fun. I dont recall the issue of target audience ever being discussed at Sugarlabs, we kind of inherited the 6-12 mission of OLPC without further analysis. I don't have the expertise to tell, but from my occasional observations it seems that 4+ yr children already enjoy hacking on Sugar and they start to feel too constrained at ages 10 and more. I'm talking of kids in developed nations who are kids who are constantly exposed to technology, though. I'd let pedagogists tell us. (and any followup to this thread should probably be moved to iaep@ anyway). -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
Hi guys, On 12 Jun 2010, at 23:53, Bernie Innocenti wrote: El Sun, 13-06-2010 a las 08:40 +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au escribió: 72 dpi icons looked good to me Maybe the logic of big icons was not eyesight but touchpad control? Though the target audience of the XO builds is still children 6-12, it doesnt have to restrict the audience of other Sugar builds. Sugarlabs can have a wider mission than OLPC. I agree, but we constantly get told that we should be more focused, not less :-) +1 One easy thing we could do is make the size of these UI elements scalable along with the font. I think there was some code to do it in trac, but it didn't make it in time for 0.88. Activity developers need to know how many units they have for development, we already have occasional issues where the final distro Sugar does not conform to the Sugar HIG units. Having important functions (aka Stop) fall off the toolbar into a fairly hidden, hard to use drop down menu is a bit of a pain :) If we add some pref option to switch to smaller icons, we will need to get a big heavy stick ready for 'doers' who decide to fill the extra space with tool buttons ;) Regards, --Gary There are features of Sugar which should have strong 12+ appeal: show source, Pippy, TurtleArt Python extensions. I made some high-school kids play with these and they seemed to have fun. I dont recall the issue of target audience ever being discussed at Sugarlabs, we kind of inherited the 6-12 mission of OLPC without further analysis. I don't have the expertise to tell, but from my occasional observations it seems that 4+ yr children already enjoy hacking on Sugar and they start to feel too constrained at ages 10 and more. I'm talking of kids in developed nations who are kids who are constantly exposed to technology, though. I'd let pedagogists tell us. (and any followup to this thread should probably be moved to iaep@ anyway). -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Tue, 08-06-2010 a las 13:21 +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au escribió: OS 240py XO-1 Though I cannot see any way to create tabs in browse, sometimes clicking links in frames creates tabs which behave erratically eg zero width tab http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/images/e/ec/Screenshot_of_Browse_0s240py_.png Simon, Lucian, any idea what may be causing this? More importantly, is Browse really unmaintained at this time? -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
I'm not sure what this is and I don't really have the time to look into it atm. Browse is in a difficult situation because hulahop, pywebkitgtk and webkitgtk+PyGI all have hazy futures. Over the summer I'll try and get Browse in a better situation (the plan so far is a thin abstraction layer). So many more bugs will crop up and some others will vanish. Not sure about maintenance after GSoC though, I have both uni and work, so little free time. On 8 June 2010 16:07, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: El Tue, 08-06-2010 a las 13:21 +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au escribió: OS 240py XO-1 Though I cannot see any way to create tabs in browse, sometimes clicking links in frames creates tabs which behave erratically eg zero width tab http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/images/e/ec/Screenshot_of_Browse_0s240py_.png Simon, Lucian, any idea what may be causing this? More importantly, is Browse really unmaintained at this time? -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Tue, 08-06-2010 a las 16:13 +0100, Lucian Branescu escribió: I'm not sure what this is and I don't really have the time to look into it atm. Browse is in a difficult situation because hulahop, pywebkitgtk and webkitgtk+PyGI all have hazy futures. Over the summer I'll try and get Browse in a better situation (the plan so far is a thin abstraction layer). Hmm... I need a quick fix for this bug (and perhaps others) by August. So many more bugs will crop up and some others will vanish. Not sure about maintenance after GSoC though, I have both uni and work, so little free time. Perhaps we could get someone like Kenny or Anish to take over Browse. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
OS 240py XO-1 Though I cannot see any way to create tabs in browse, sometimes clicking links in frames creates tabs which behave erratically eg zero width tab http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/images/e/ec/Screenshot_of_Browse_0s240py_.png Tony ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Sat, 29-05-2010 a las 19:19 +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au escribió: os240py font in Write is small and text does not fill the screen width Please, try editing /usr/bin/sugar to force SUGAR_SCALING=100. Does this change fix the bug? -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:27:09PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote: El Sat, 29-05-2010 a las 19:19 +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au escribi??: os240py font in Write is small and text does not fill the screen width Please, try editing /usr/bin/sugar to force SUGAR_SCALING=100. Tested. Does this change fix the bug? No. (But it does fix the size of icons in the activity ring). -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Fri, 28-05-2010 a las 21:16 +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au escribió: bugs os240py Activities sometimes launch and stay in a window (seen with paint and turtle blocks) but not happening today more frequently the window appears only for a fraction of a second at launch (with scratch and abacus the window is visible for half a second or so) and Pippy always launches pygame in a window I've also seen this happen, but only temporarily, while the cpu is being hogged by some activity. Thou I think it never happened to me in SoaS or in sugar-emulator. Can anyone confirm this? So we'd figure out whether or or not it's OS-specific. once paint briefly said activity failed to start, just before it started ok pulsing icon during activity start is delayed in appearing, eg takes 4 seconds with turtle blocks, thats one of the slowest I have seen this issue too. These are obviously fall-outs from the switch to Metacity. If debugging these issues turns out to take too much time, we could simply revert to matchbox for this release. Anyway, until we add support for non-sugar applications, there's no big advantage in using Metacity. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Sat, 29-05-2010 a las 11:20 +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au escribió: os240py Measure sometimes locks up on recording a waveform, quitting from frame then brings up metacity dialog activity is not responding Dont think there was any error log. I've never seen this happen myself... Can you test the same version of Measure with an older version of Sugar? For example, os179py. more on delayed or absent pulsing start icon and activities starting in window: i suspect the two may be related, on the rare occasion that an activity started in a window, the pulsing icon was absent (also rare) sugar sometimes restarts; only seen 3 times, twice clicking on journal and once deleting a journal entry Restart?? Wow. I wonder if we're making X11 crash. If you get this again, could you check /var/log/Xorg.0.log.old? -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tim McNamara paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz wrote: On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Hello everyone, we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments, although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features developed in Uruguay. Full details are here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Peter Just for my knowledge, does Fedora have an equivalent to Ubuntu's long-term support releases? No Without thinking too deeply about the implications, it make sense (to me) to peg XO development to something that's stable over a few years. That way package versions etc will be widely known and consistent. /me reads [1]. Apparently not. Is there anyway to achieve something similar without needing to pay for RHEL, which is probably a bit of an overkill? Well RHEL requires licensing, there's CentOS but the current release of both of the aforementioned have a stable set of packages too old for Sugar. RHEL-6 might well provide the stability we need but its not out yet, and the associated CentOS release can be quite a bit delayed. Its something that is being reviewed but as there is not official RHEL/CentOS release yet we can't say when that will be. Peter ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Hello everyone, we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments, although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features developed in Uruguay. Full details are here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Peter Just for my knowledge, does Fedora have an equivalent to Ubuntu's long-term support releases? Without thinking too deeply about the implications, it make sense (to me) to peg XO development to something that's stable over a few years. That way package versions etc will be widely known and consistent. /me reads [1]. Apparently not. Is there anyway to achieve something similar without needing to pay for RHEL, which is probably a bit of an overkill? Best regards, Tim McNamara @timClicks [1] http://news.cnet.com/Long-term-Fedora-Linux-support-ending/2100-7344_3-6146604.html ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
CentOS ? On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Tim McNamara paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nzwrote: On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Hello everyone, we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments, although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features developed in Uruguay. Full details are here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Peter Just for my knowledge, does Fedora have an equivalent to Ubuntu's long-term support releases? Without thinking too deeply about the implications, it make sense (to me) to peg XO development to something that's stable over a few years. That way package versions etc will be widely known and consistent. /me reads [1]. Apparently not. Is there anyway to achieve something similar without needing to pay for RHEL, which is probably a bit of an overkill? Best regards, Tim McNamara @timClicks [1] http://news.cnet.com/Long-term-Fedora-Linux-support-ending/2100-7344_3-6146604.html ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Gonzalo Odiard Responsable de Desarrollo Sistemas Australes ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Tim McNamara paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz wrote: On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Hello everyone, we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments, although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features developed in Uruguay. Full details are here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Peter Just for my knowledge, does Fedora have an equivalent to Ubuntu's long-term support releases? Without thinking too deeply about the implications, it make sense (to me) to peg XO development to something that's stable over a few years. That way package versions etc will be widely known and consistent. /me reads [1]. Apparently not. Is there anyway to achieve something similar without needing to pay for RHEL, which is probably a bit of an overkill? This is going to be one of the largest challenges. From Redhat's point of view, Fedora is an innovative upstream. when we land on a specific Fedora versions we will have to make the commitment to support it for a specific period of time. On the bright side Sugar on Fedora on the XO is self limiting to a very small set of hardware and a reasonably small set of packages. Expensive but not prohibitive. david Best regards, Tim McNamara @timClicks [1] http://news.cnet.com/Long-term-Fedora-Linux-support-ending/2100-7344_3-6146604.html ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
os240py font in Write is small and text does not fill the screen width ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
bugs os240py Activities sometimes launch and stay in a window (seen with paint and turtle blocks) but not happening today more frequently the window appears only for a fraction of a second at launch (with scratch and abacus the window is visible for half a second or so) and Pippy always launches pygame in a window once paint briefly said activity failed to start, just before it started ok pulsing icon during activity start is delayed in appearing, eg takes 4 seconds with turtle blocks, thats one of the slowest tony ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
os240py Measure sometimes locks up on recording a waveform, quitting from frame then brings up metacity dialog activity is not responding Dont think there was any error log. more on delayed or absent pulsing start icon and activities starting in window: i suspect the two may be related, on the rare occasion that an activity started in a window, the pulsing icon was absent (also rare) sugar sometimes restarts; only seen 3 times, twice clicking on journal and once deleting a journal entry tony ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 23:12, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: El Tue, 25-05-2010 a las 19:16 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió: Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Unfortunately, this build is still based on Fedora 11. Fedora 13 dropped support for the Geode processor, so it's not an option. Upgrading to Fedora 12 would be possible, but there are unsolved issues with the Geode video driver (jnettlet is working on it). That's not entirely true. The was no changes in CPU support from F-12 to F-13. What has happened was a change in gcc which causes issues with F-13 on geode processors. There's a bit missing from gcc for geode support that would need to be added. dsd and cjb know more of the details. I'm happy to hear this. F14 may bring interesting changes for the XO1, can we hope that support for the Geode won't have been dropped by then? Thanks, Tomeu Considering the potential for hard to fix regressions, I felt that upgrading to Fedora 12 was probably not worth the effort. Instead, I've back-ported some useful things from Fedora 13: metacity-2.30, xulrunner-1.9.2.3 and usb_modeswitch-1.1.2. Someone could try rebasing the builds on Fedora 12 in parallel with us. If the result turns out to be very stable, we could consider switching. All this would probably have happen before the first beta, so there's not much time. If there's demand for it and its considered a 'good thing' I would consider pushing sugar 0.88 back to F-12. Not guaranteed, but its something that could be considered. Peter ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@tomeuvizoso.net wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 23:12, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: El Tue, 25-05-2010 a las 19:16 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió: Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Unfortunately, this build is still based on Fedora 11. Fedora 13 dropped support for the Geode processor, so it's not an option. Upgrading to Fedora 12 would be possible, but there are unsolved issues with the Geode video driver (jnettlet is working on it). That's not entirely true. The was no changes in CPU support from F-12 to F-13. What has happened was a change in gcc which causes issues with F-13 on geode processors. There's a bit missing from gcc for geode support that would need to be added. dsd and cjb know more of the details. I'm happy to hear this. F14 may bring interesting changes for the XO1, can we hope that support for the Geode won't have been dropped by then? There was a bug report [1] that was filed about it to do with glibc. Since I last looked at the bug there was an update added mentioning a kernel patch [2] to fix the problem. So by the look of it we could actually get it supported in F-13 with little effort once that patch has been accepted upstream. Yay! Cheers, Peter [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579838 [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=126748102722641w=2 ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Wed, 26-05-2010 a las 09:29 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió: I'm happy to hear this. F14 may bring interesting changes for the XO1, can we hope that support for the Geode won't have been dropped by then? There was a bug report [1] that was filed about it to do with glibc. Since I last looked at the bug there was an update added mentioning a kernel patch [2] to fix the problem. So by the look of it we could actually get it supported in F-13 with little effort once that patch has been accepted upstream. Yay! More than a bugfix, this is a work-around for the Geode not being fully compatible with the instruction set which Fedora is compiled for. Emulating the missing NOPL opcode in a kernel trap handler is going to be 10-100 times slower than the original instruction sequence. Let's just hope that GCC doesn't have the habit of generating any of these inside tight loops. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: El Wed, 26-05-2010 a las 09:29 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió: I'm happy to hear this. F14 may bring interesting changes for the XO1, can we hope that support for the Geode won't have been dropped by then? There was a bug report [1] that was filed about it to do with glibc. Since I last looked at the bug there was an update added mentioning a kernel patch [2] to fix the problem. So by the look of it we could actually get it supported in F-13 with little effort once that patch has been accepted upstream. Yay! More than a bugfix, this is a work-around for the Geode not being fully compatible with the instruction set which Fedora is compiled for. Emulating the missing NOPL opcode in a kernel trap handler is going to be 10-100 times slower than the original instruction sequence. Let's just hope that GCC doesn't have the habit of generating any of these inside tight loops. yea, or you can install your own koji infrastructure and setup a i586/i383 secondary arch, rebuild all of fedora, provide hosting, servers,storage and infrastructure infrastructure for it. TBH I don't know what changed between F-12 and F-13. It wasn't the compile flag changes as I checked them so I'm wondering wondering why its suddenly a problem. I have a mostly stable XO-1 running SOAS-2 without issues when fully updated (except for some black icons). So it could be that for some reason we're suddenly triggering this where we haven't in the past. Other suggestions are welcome. I'm really not up to speed on random x86 assembler quirks between chips. Peter ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
Hi, TBH I don't know what changed between F-12 and F-13. It wasn't the compile flag changes as I checked them so I'm wondering wondering why its suddenly a problem. gcc changed; it started emitting NOPL instructions under i686. - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org One Laptop Per Child ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On 25 May 2010 18:12, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: That's not entirely true. The was no changes in CPU support from F-12 to F-13. What has happened was a change in gcc which causes issues with F-13 on geode processors. There's a bit missing from gcc for geode support that would need to be added. dsd and cjb know more of the details. Interesting, I hadn't realised that. The change from i586 to i686 happened for F12, not F13 as I had thought. So in fact, it is likely that F12 will not work on XO-1, but it might only affect a handful of packages. The problem is that the Geode is an i586, not an i686. It does support the majority of the new i686 instructions, but not all. So it's not quite an i686. The reason that the problem is more evident on F13 will be due to improvements in the compiler (gcc), which is now better at producing optimized code using the new optimized i686 instructions, including the ones that are not supported on geode. One option is to persuade Fedora that OLPC/Geode matters and ask them to go back to i586. The other is to implement an instruction emulator in the kernel, which will emulate in software the i686 instructions that are not supported on geode. This will introduce a slowdown, but because the instruction in question (nopl) is simple, the kernel can emulate all instances of it at the same time (within the current code section) once the first instance is met. As has been pointed out, there is some kernel code floating around that is working in this direction. However, it's not totally correct and the kernel developers want a more generic system rather than something Geode-specific. And there are efforts going in this direction, but there have been for 1-2 years now, it is slow moving. We need someone like Bernie to pick up the project, hint hint ;) Daniel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Wed, 26-05-2010 a las 12:00 -0300, Daniel Drake escribió: As has been pointed out, there is some kernel code floating around that is working in this direction. However, it's not totally correct and the kernel developers want a more generic system rather than something Geode-specific. And there are efforts going in this direction, but there have been for 1-2 years now, it is slow moving. We need someone like Bernie to pick up the project, hint hint ;) :-) The lazy Bernie would opt for merging the NOPL emulation patch into our custom OLPC kernel so we can do a quick test with Fedora 13. If it works, there will probably be a few more issues to fix, such as the Geode driver. I'm afraid we lack resources to debug both Sugar and Fedora in time for the August release. If someone wants to take ownership of the platform part, I'd be happy to try. The criteria for accepting the distro upgrade is the usual one: no known regressions relative to Fedora 11 + Sugar 0.88. (all bundled activities must work as well as before). -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:25 -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote: Hello everyone, we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments, although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features developed in Uruguay. Full details are here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes The current image, os140py, is an alpha quality build with a few known regressions. s/os140py/os240py/ Raúl ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Hello everyone, we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments, although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features developed in Uruguay. Full details are here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes The current image, os140py, is an alpha quality build with a few known regressions. Please, help us make this release as polished as possible. For the occasion, it would be great if someone volunteered to revive the Sugar Labs Bug Squad. We're going to coordinate with the fledgling Deployment Team to gather feedback directly from the field. Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Peter ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On 05/25/2010 08:16 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocentiber...@codewiz.org wrote: Hello everyone, we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments, although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features developed in Uruguay. Full details are here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes The current image, os140py, is an alpha quality build with a few known regressions. Please, help us make this release as polished as possible. For the occasion, it would be great if someone volunteered to revive the Sugar Labs Bug Squad. We're going to coordinate with the fledgling Deployment Team to gather feedback directly from the field. Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Peter I am interested in that one, too. Are there any plans to move on? As F11 is EOL soon... Regards, Simon ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de wrote: On 05/25/2010 08:16 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocentiber...@codewiz.org wrote: Hello everyone, we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments, although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features developed in Uruguay. Full details are here: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes The current image, os140py, is an alpha quality build with a few known regressions. Please, help us make this release as polished as possible. For the occasion, it would be great if someone volunteered to revive the Sugar Labs Bug Squad. We're going to coordinate with the fledgling Deployment Team to gather feedback directly from the field. Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Peter I am interested in that one, too. Are there any plans to move on? As F11 is EOL soon... Well there's a gcc issues with the F-13 gcc on the geode so until that is resolved F-12 might be as far as we can go. Peter ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Tue, 25-05-2010 a las 19:16 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió: Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Unfortunately, this build is still based on Fedora 11. Fedora 13 dropped support for the Geode processor, so it's not an option. Upgrading to Fedora 12 would be possible, but there are unsolved issues with the Geode video driver (jnettlet is working on it). Considering the potential for hard to fix regressions, I felt that upgrading to Fedora 12 was probably not worth the effort. Instead, I've back-ported some useful things from Fedora 13: metacity-2.30, xulrunner-1.9.2.3 and usb_modeswitch-1.1.2. Someone could try rebasing the builds on Fedora 12 in parallel with us. If the result turns out to be very stable, we could consider switching. All this would probably have happen before the first beta, so there's not much time. We cannot afford to shift the release because it would mean loosing the August launch window. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: El Tue, 25-05-2010 a las 19:16 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió: Is F-11 still the base OS for this? Unfortunately, this build is still based on Fedora 11. Fedora 13 dropped support for the Geode processor, so it's not an option. Upgrading to Fedora 12 would be possible, but there are unsolved issues with the Geode video driver (jnettlet is working on it). That's not entirely true. The was no changes in CPU support from F-12 to F-13. What has happened was a change in gcc which causes issues with F-13 on geode processors. There's a bit missing from gcc for geode support that would need to be added. dsd and cjb know more of the details. Considering the potential for hard to fix regressions, I felt that upgrading to Fedora 12 was probably not worth the effort. Instead, I've back-ported some useful things from Fedora 13: metacity-2.30, xulrunner-1.9.2.3 and usb_modeswitch-1.1.2. Someone could try rebasing the builds on Fedora 12 in parallel with us. If the result turns out to be very stable, we could consider switching. All this would probably have happen before the first beta, so there's not much time. If there's demand for it and its considered a 'good thing' I would consider pushing sugar 0.88 back to F-12. Not guaranteed, but its something that could be considered. Peter ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
