Here is an image builder which makes Fedora 10-based desktop images
for the XO. They use XFCE. Currently there is at least one
outstanding bug, which is that network manager applet won't start
because of security configuration problems with consolekit.
http://dev.laptop.org/git/users/erik/rpmxo
Am Montag, den 12.01.2009, 14:41 -0500 schrieb Erik Garrison:
Here is an image builder which makes Fedora 10-based desktop images
for the XO. They use XFCE. Currently there is at least one
outstanding bug, which is that network manager applet won't start
because of security configuration
Am Dienstag, den 06.01.2009, 17:31 -0500 schrieb Erik Garrison:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:54:24PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
Carlos Nazareno wrote:
Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Gilmore g...@toad.com wrote:
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
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 09:21, C. Scott Ananian csc...@laptop.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Gilmore g...@toad.com wrote:
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
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 09:21, C. Scott Ananian csc...@laptop.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Gilmore g...@toad.com wrote:
I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE
interface.
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
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 07:47:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Peter Robinson wrote:
I don't believe that is true at all. I believe XFCE is an install
option during a full install and there's a fully Fedora blessed XFCE
spin available from Fedora here http://spins.fedoraproject.org/ . It
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 07:47:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
One thing, we try not to do, is deviate from upstream and apply many
patches like some of the other Xfce based spin-off's do which is a
general Fedora policy as well and not something specific to the Xfce
team.
The patches
Erik Garrison wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 07:47:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
One thing, we try not to do, is deviate from upstream and apply many
patches like some of the other Xfce based spin-off's do which is a
general Fedora policy as well and not something specific to the Xfce
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 07:50, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
* Does not need to make it easy to share files between Fedora and Sugar.
- assuming its all running from the same base OS and just switching
GUIs this should be OK except for stuff stored in the journal
possibly. If
Hi Peter,
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,
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:31:12PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi Peter,
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,
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Erik Garrison wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:31:12PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi Peter,
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
Hi,
Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE.
I think there are significant differences in system resource
consumption.
Ed, maybe you can help here -- since this has been going back and forth
for a while, could you help us come to/make a decision about whether
On Jan 06 2009, at 14:23, Chris Ball was caught saying:
Hi,
Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I
think there are significant differences in system resource
consumption.
We had a long thread about whether to use GNOME or XFCE on devel@ last
month.
chris wrote:
Hi Peter,
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
Hi,
I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm
thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of
the flash chip. With only 256MiB of RAM, we are bound to swap a
lot. I'd feel more comfortable if we did flash-wide wear leveling
using
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 02:23:24PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I
think there are significant differences in system resource
consumption.
We had a long thread about whether to use GNOME or XFCE on devel@ last
Another plug for Teapot's Intrepid Ibex install if you want an easy way to
try the Ubuntu XFCE out on an SD card. I think it is quite beautiful.
http://www.olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=4053.0
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Erik Garrison e...@laptop.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at
On Jan 06 2009, at 14:42, Chris Ball was caught saying:
Hi,
I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm
thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of
the flash chip. With only 256MiB of RAM, we are bound to swap a
lot. I'd feel
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:19:52PM -0800, Deepak Saxena wrote:
On Jan 06 2009, at 14:42, Chris Ball was caught saying:
Hi,
I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm
thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of
the flash chip. With
I vote XFCE.
Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
some time ago to measure the impact of switching from Actionscript 2.0
to 3.0. I called it TeddyMark and it has 16 instances of Teddy (a
character we made for one of our games) running around the screen and
an FPS
Carlos Nazareno wrote:
Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not
CPU. I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave
differently in terms of background CPU overhead or cost of
Greg,
I don't mean to be nasty, but I do feel the need to be blunt:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:28:36PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
Hi Michael,
We are definitely behind where I would like to be at this stage.
How far behind?
However, we'll only move the date when we must and we'll only do it
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Chris Ball wrote:
Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE.
I think there are significant differences in system resource
consumption.
Ed, maybe you can help here -- since this has been going back and forth
for a while, could you help us
Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not CPU.
I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave differently
in terms of background CPU overhead or cost of common operations.
Well, in any case, it really wouldn't hurt to benchmark the CPU
consumption
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:54:24PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
Carlos Nazareno wrote:
Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not
Hi Michael,
No problem being blunt.
I don't know yet how far behind we are or what it will take to catch up.
We are close if we create a target bug list in the next two weeks then
start daily triage and weekly test blitzes.
Quality is my primary concern, especially if you throw in a lot of
Hi Greg,
The choice of file system isn't a deal breaker for the Fedora
Desktop feature. The hard part will be picking the right desktop
(more on that soon, I already love the dancing benchmark bears :-),
making it fit on the NAND, and testing it enough to prove its
usable.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Michael Stone mich...@laptop.org wrote:
Greg,
I don't mean to be nasty, but I do feel the need to be blunt:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:28:36PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
Hi Michael,
We are definitely behind where I would like to be at this stage.
How far
Hi Paul,
i was actually thinking in the other direction: if the ohmd action
were disabled, i assume we'd get the g-p-m screen. is that screen
tuneable? if g-p-m is possibly going in anyway, it might obviate
the power button menu work.
I'm not seeing a menu, even after killing
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 Peter,
Good news. I'm aware of the conflicts you mention. I'm not sure
that we need evince-dvi (not sure if its a requirement of anything
though and hence gets pulled in automatically).
That's right, we don't need it. It's part of the groupinstall, but it's
not depended on
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
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:40:07PM -0500, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
Peter Robinson wrote:
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
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
Peter Robinson wrote:
I don't believe that is true at all. I believe XFCE is an install
option during a full install and there's a fully Fedora blessed XFCE
spin available from Fedora here http://spins.fedoraproject.org/ . It
is certainly not the main desktop they support but it is no less
I'm not seeing a menu, even after killing ohmd, with When the power
button is pressed: Ask me chosen in the g-p-m prefs. Dunno why yet.
This works in debXO 0.4, I use it all the time. Ask dilinger how he
made it work.
John
___
Devel mailing
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
Hi Peter,
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
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
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 Peter, thanks for the reply,
Is this on 8.2.0 or joyride? It looks like 8.2 due to the
gnome-python version being olpc3.
It's running a joyride F10 build, but looks like you're right about
olpc3. Here's the /etc/yum.repos.d/olpc-development.repo shipped in
Joyride:
Hi Peter et al,
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 specifications section here:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Run_Fedora_applications_on_XO
What do we do next when we get a
49 matches
Mail list logo
