Hi Erik,
>> Fedora has a set of tools now called Appliance-Tools [1] for creating
>> this sort of thing. You can use it to specify a minimal build and then
>> pull in the extra stuff you want, specify repositories etc. I used it
>> to build a joyride VM I could use for slicing and dicing package d
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:32:58AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
>> 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.
> G
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Bobby Powers wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Erik Garrison wrote:
>
> >
> > I have been quite frustrated with the Fedora toolset in this regard.
> > Getting a bare minimum of functionality is not something which these
> > tools are typically us
> 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. w
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-pickin
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Erik Garrison wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:42:48PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Thanks for all the feedback on my questions about what it would take to
> > run a slimmed down Fedora 10 on the XO NAND.
> >
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/f
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 list
On 16.12.2008, at 18:56, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> (but seriously: we only need to add to what we have -- we don't
>> need to start from scratch, rebuilding and/or subtracting from
>> fedora.)
>
> In particular, I think:
>
> * take a Joyride build
> * yum groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Enviro
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:56:47PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> (but seriously: we only need to add to what we have -- we don't
>> need to start from scratch, rebuilding and/or subtracting from
>> fedora.)
>
> In particular, I think:
>
>* take a Joyride build
>* yum gr
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!
Thanks,
Greg S
p...@laptop.org wrote:
> greg wrote:
> >
Hi,
> (but seriously: we only need to add to what we have -- we don't
> need to start from scratch, rebuilding and/or subtracting from
> fedora.)
In particular, I think:
* take a Joyride build
* yum groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Environment"
* http://dev.laptop.org/git/users/csco
greg wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for all the feedback on my questions about what it would take to
> run a slimmed down Fedora 10 on the XO NAND.
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-olpc-list/2008-December/msg00022.html
>
> To reiterate, the goal is one distribution with two Desktop E
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:42:48PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for all the feedback on my questions about what it would take to
> run a slimmed down Fedora 10 on the XO NAND.
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-olpc-list/2008-December/msg00022.html
>
> To reiterate, the go
Hi All,
Thanks for all the feedback on my questions about what it would take to
run a slimmed down Fedora 10 on the XO NAND.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-olpc-list/2008-December/msg00022.html
To reiterate, the goal is one distribution with two Desktop Environments
(Sugar and one "stan
+1
In fact, to be specific, here in Perú, the former president of APESOL
(Peruvian Free Software Association) is sometimes quoted as saying
OLPC is pretty cool except for Sugar. I've seen this attitude among
many geeks here. That is fine, for it was not designed with them in
mind. Still, if a simpl
I'm in xubuntu (xfce) right now, and it is noticeably faster on my 1.2 GHz
machine than Gnome (same kernel and everything). It also has network
manager, automount, graphical control panels, all the mod cons. I'd say that
if we could get something roughly nearing this level, then XFCE is probably
th
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Ed McNierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris -
>
> Thanks; I think your thoughts are rather similar to mine and I am trying to
> get information on what the actual user need (or perceived need) is.
This is a very important point from the adoption perspective. Use
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Erik Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
>> * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND
>> at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now?
>> GS - Possibly depending on sp
Hi Chris,
That sounds good! Please call up Dr. Frankenstein and resurrect the
beast for inspection :-)
Can you also put a link to any description of it (or to the code,
relevant e-mail threads or whatever is available) in the specifications
section of the feature?
Thanks,
Greg S
Chris Ball
Hi Erik,
My general impression is that its not used that often. Mostly because
very few deployments have upgraded and some may choose to clean install
when they do.
The main value of it is for Beta testers and technical people who work
on validating the new releases. Hopefully this feature is
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> * Will it stop us from being able to hold two SugarOS builds on the NAND
> at the same time after olpc-update, as we do now?
> GS - Possibly depending on space needed. I think we would consider
> losing that feature if needed. tbd.
Chris -
Thanks; I think your thoughts are rather similar to mine and I am trying to
get information on what the actual user need (or perceived need) is. While
there are obvious storage and RAM constraints involved, we need to be sure
we're providing what most users will want (users of this deskto
>>> 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
> > 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. :-)
>
>
Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 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
Hi,
> debxo manages to fit a gnome build in a small enough space to fit
> on the NAND
I agree that there exist smaller distributions than Fedora 10, but that
doesn't make F10 one of them (yet). Still, it's nice to have a proof of
concept, and the delta of debxo's gnome.img - sugar.img (80M
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > 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,
Hi,
> 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
chris wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard"
>> Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should
>> have said "desktop environments" as Martin notes.
>
> Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it
I second the motion of putting the xfce as an option in the control
panel. As these kids with the
machine get older, it gives them an option to continue learning and
using a machine that will
come closer to matching those in business.
I have been playing with the gentoo xo spin, and it boots
Hi,
> I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard"
> Fedora X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should
> have said "desktop environments" as Martin notes.
Okay, I see, that sounds good. If we're comfortable with Xfce, it
sounds like we should resurrect Sc
Hi Martin and Peter,
Sorry got my Linux terminology a little munged there.
I meant that we would ship a Sugar interface and a "standard" Fedora
X-Window interface (e.g. XFCE) on the same NAND. I should have said
"desktop environments" as Martin notes.
Thanks for the tips and comments. You can
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> [Chris] So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND?
> GS - Yes.
GS: I think you meant "desktop environments", not "distributions".
> Greg S
Martin
pgp75WddDP55Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:36:53PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Hi Erik, Peter and Chris,
>
> Thanks a lot for the comments and offer of help!
>
> I updated the requirement to explain that the idea is a slimmed down
> version of Fedora which fits on our NAND.
>
> I added a comment about upgrading t
> * 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 inter
Hi Erik, Peter and Chris,
Thanks a lot for the comments and offer of help!
I updated the requirement to explain that the idea is a slimmed down
version of Fedora which fits on our NAND.
I added a comment about upgrading too.
Here are some comments on the rest of Chris's questions:
* So we'd s
Hi,
> This is the case for the official Fedora 10. It need not be the
> case for an rpm-based system built out of the Fedora 10
> repositories. I am currently working on a solution which should
> comfortably fit into the 1 GB of NAND FLASH. Call it a respin.
> rpmxo.
* So we'd s
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:01:31PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
>> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS
>
>> Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined?
>> What else do we need to track?
>
> FWIW, I think this is the first I've heard of
Hi Greg,
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap#Linux_and_OS
> Any comments welcome. Do they make sense? Are they well defined?
> What else do we need to track?
FWIW, I think this is the first I've heard of:
"Must allow switching between Fedora 10 with a conventional desktop
40 matches
Mail list logo
