XO-1.5 Book Sprint: Wkd Mch 27/28 in Washington DC -- GET STARTED!
Do you believe in /Clean, Helpful/ documentation and open source tools?? Mike Lee has inspired us to overhaul and beef up Walter Bender's very elegant Javascript-based "Getting Started" guide here: http://laptop.org/start (if Walter permits ;) for the imminent release of the XO-1.5 -- in several languages -- all in one fast weekend! Please all RSVP if you can join the party!! Think about the most talented writers/screenshot/Photoshop artists you know -- we'd LOVE to invite them -- even if they're 16-years-old like Luke in which case no Saturday night drinks & dancing for you ;) Jeff Elkner and his principal have generously offered to host us 9am to 7pm Saturday & Sunday at Arlington, Virginia's beautiful Career Center, 1+ mile W. of the Pentagon. /Please subscribe to libr...@lists.laptop.org and join us jumpstarting OLPC/Sugar learning around the world -- by reviewing all details here:/ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Start ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Root filesystem ran out of room in F11-on-XO1
Hello, What version of olpc-update? On Feb 27, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Steven M. Parrish wrote: > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 07:13:22 pm Mikus Grinbergs wrote: >> Disclaimer: I am not asking for help; I am sharing my experience. >> >> Was running a large 'yum' update to an XO1 with os11 installed -- it >> failed, because 'yum' ran out of room in the '/' filesystem. I looked, >> and it turned out that before this 'yum' run started, /dev/mtdblock0 had >> been nearly 90% "used". [For conveniences sake, because '/' is 1GB, >> I'll say 10% of '/' is about 100MB (that disregards jffs2 "packing").] >> >> For comparison, I have a not-used-for-testing XO1 with os10 installed -- >> its '/' filesystem shows "used" a bit over 50%. The near 40% difference >> in "how much was used" between the two systems comes out to over 400MB. >> [ os11.zd did come with more facilities installed than did os10.zd ] >> >> The amount of software I had added myself was approximately equal for >> those os11 and os10 systems. Let us assume that I had filled some 100MB >> of the os11 system's space with "leftovers" from my testing. That still >> leaves the os11 system with 300MB plus of "occupancy" to be accounted >> for. My suspicion is that the major part of this difference in '/' >> filesystem "used" is attributable to directory /versions in os11. >> >> >> If my suspicion is correct, then the "ease of use" of olpc-update (which >> depends upon /versions) needs to be balanced against the potential for >> "shock" if the XO-1 user "runs out of room in the XO1" that much sooner. >> >> mikus >> >> >> >> p.s. >> >> A partial printout from 'du' on the two systems: >>>Directory os11os10 >>> >>>/bin64756474 >>>/etc 39513 39455 >>>/lib 36428 28144 >>>/tmp 0 0 >>>/var 35012 36009 >>>/boot 93199308 >>>/home 122330 44500 >>>/sbin 12722 12714 >>>/security140 140 >>>/bootpart 0 0 >>>/usr 964111 868882 >>>/versions 925311 >> >> I have no idea why /usr came out so big - I had told 'du' not to follow >> symbolic links. [Note that the numbers for /usr alone are in the >> vicinity of the size of the whole /dev/mtdblock0 device -- does jffs2 >> "packing" account for this ?] >> >> Also, /versions has lots of cross-links, which 'du' might have counted >> as though they were separate files. >> >> ___ >> olpc mailing list >> o...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/olpc > > This is something I noticed when creating OS11. The resulting build was much > larger however I attributed it to the new build system and inclusion of > additional apps. I have just started working on OS12 and will do some > digging > to get the size back down. > > Steven > > -- > = > Steven M. Parrish > - > gpg fingerprint: 4B6C 8357 059E B7ED 8095 0FD6 1F4B EDA0 A9A6 13C0 > http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/ > irc.freenode.net: > Nickname: SMParrish > Channels: #fedora-kde, #fedora-olpc, #fedora-edu, #sugar, #packagekit > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Problem importing hulahop.webview() in sugar emulator
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 20:56, vijit singh wrote: > Hello Tomeu, > Thank You once again for your guidance. Surely I will keep on posting the > updates. I was also confused about the use of the statement- > hulahop.startup(os.path.join(env.get_profile_path(), 'gecko')) > What is the significance of hulahop.startup? It surely seems to be imp. > since the absence of this line results into an error. > Also, gecko folder seems to be containing paths to different xulrunner > files. Does including the same gecko folder (as is used in sugar) into the > socialcalc package which we will make for fedora, and referring to this > folder through the hulahop.startup statement work on fedora as well? Hi Vijit, if you look at the source code, you can see it's the path to the profile directory: http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/hulahop/repos/mainline/blobs/master/python/__init__.py#line41 https://wiki.mozilla.org/XULRunner#User_Profiles Kindly > give some pointers. > Regards, > VIJIT > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> >> 2010/2/23 vijit singh : >> > Hello Tomeu, >> > I tried installing hulahop again as you suggested on fedora-11 and it >> > got installed properly. Now, the socialcalc and the browse activity are >> > running as well. Thank you for your guidance. >> > Also wished to discuss that we are planning to port SocialCalc on >> > various linux distros starting from Fedora. The first approach which we are >> > considering is by using a pygtk based root-level window to embed >> > hulahop.webview widget in quite a similar fashion as it has been done in >> > Sugar currently. Do you think it would be a feasible approach? Is there any >> > other approach which you suggest would be better? Kindly give some pointers >> > on the issue. >> >> This is the approach that I would recommend. Please keep us posted! >> >> Regards, >> >> Tomeu >> >> > Regards, >> > VIJIT >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Tomeu Vizoso >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 18:56, Vijit Singh wrote: >> >> > Hello Tomeu and Aleskey, >> >> > Thank you for your replies. I will test your suggestions in a day or >> >> > two and >> >> > will let you know about the results since I have been out of town and >> >> > hence >> >> > unable to access net since the last 2 days. >> >> > >> >> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 23:36, vijit singh >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Hello everyone, >> >> >> > SocialCalc is based upon the use of hulahop.webview widget. While >> >> >> > trying >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > run socialcalc on sugar emulator running on Fedora and Ubuntu, >> >> >> > error >> >> >> > saying >> >> >> > "No module hulahop" was occurring. So, we tried installing hulahop >> >> >> > on >> >> >> > these >> >> >> > linux distributions. >> >> >> > 1. Firstly we tried with ubuntu-8.10, here are the exact steps >> >> >> > taken- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > xulrunner was pre-installed. And then I >> >> >> > installed python-support.deb >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > libxul0d.deb which are pre-requistie packages for python-xpcom >> >> >> > package >> >> >> > (other pre-requistie packages were already installed). Then i >> >> >> > installed >> >> >> > python-xpcom. And then I installed python-hulahop and hulahop. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Downlaod links for these packages are as follows:- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > http://packages.ubuntu.com/en/intrepid/python/python-xpcom >> >> >> > http://packages.ubuntu.com/en/intrepid/hulahop >> >> >> > http://packages.ubuntu.com/en/intrepid/python-hulahop >> >> >> > Now, though hulahop was getting imported but while using >> >> >> > hulahop.webview, an >> >> >> > error saying "hulahop has no attribute webview" occured. However, >> >> >> > when >> >> >> > we >> >> >> > checked the hulahop folder, there was a file named webview.py, so >> >> >> > this >> >> >> > problem might be because of some kind of wrongly set library >> >> >> > paths. >> >> >> > 2. Then we tried it with ubuntu-9.10, with similar steps but got >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > same >> >> >> > result. >> >> >> > 3. Then we tried it with fedora-11- >> >> >> > Installed hulahop and then xpcom from the following >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > link- http://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/mandriva/2009.1/i586/media/main/release/python-xpcom-1.9.0.8-1mdv2009.1.i586.html >> >> >> >> >> >> This is a Mandriva package. I recommend using the tools available in >> >> >> each distro for installing software. In Fedora it would be: "yum >> >> >> install hulahop" >> >> > >> >> > We tried yum install hulahop but it said no package named hulahop, >> >> > our first >> >> > approach on fedora was to use yum and on ubuntu was to use apt get, >> >> > but both >> >> > gave the same results. >> >> >> >> In Fedora 11, this is the ouput of yum search hulahop: >> >> >> >> [to...@zviratko ~]$ yum search hulahop >> >> Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, presto, refresh-packagekit >> >> =
Re: Root filesystem ran out of room in F11-on-XO1
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 07:13:22 pm Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > Disclaimer: I am not asking for help; I am sharing my experience. > > Was running a large 'yum' update to an XO1 with os11 installed -- it > failed, because 'yum' ran out of room in the '/' filesystem. I looked, > and it turned out that before this 'yum' run started, /dev/mtdblock0 had > been nearly 90% "used". [For conveniences sake, because '/' is 1GB, > I'll say 10% of '/' is about 100MB (that disregards jffs2 "packing").] > > For comparison, I have a not-used-for-testing XO1 with os10 installed -- > its '/' filesystem shows "used" a bit over 50%. The near 40% difference > in "how much was used" between the two systems comes out to over 400MB. > [ os11.zd did come with more facilities installed than did os10.zd ] > > The amount of software I had added myself was approximately equal for > those os11 and os10 systems. Let us assume that I had filled some 100MB > of the os11 system's space with "leftovers" from my testing. That still > leaves the os11 system with 300MB plus of "occupancy" to be accounted > for. My suspicion is that the major part of this difference in '/' > filesystem "used" is attributable to directory /versions in os11. > > > If my suspicion is correct, then the "ease of use" of olpc-update (which > depends upon /versions) needs to be balanced against the potential for > "shock" if the XO-1 user "runs out of room in the XO1" that much sooner. > > mikus > > > > p.s. > > A partial printout from 'du' on the two systems: > > Directory os11os10 > > > > /bin64756474 > > /etc 39513 39455 > > /lib 36428 28144 > > /tmp 0 0 > > /var 35012 36009 > > /boot 93199308 > > /home 122330 44500 > > /sbin 12722 12714 > > /security140 140 > > /bootpart 0 0 > > /usr 964111 868882 > > /versions 925311 > > I have no idea why /usr came out so big - I had told 'du' not to follow > symbolic links. [Note that the numbers for /usr alone are in the > vicinity of the size of the whole /dev/mtdblock0 device -- does jffs2 > "packing" account for this ?] > > Also, /versions has lots of cross-links, which 'du' might have counted > as though they were separate files. > > ___ > olpc mailing list > o...@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/olpc This is something I noticed when creating OS11. The resulting build was much larger however I attributed it to the new build system and inclusion of additional apps. I have just started working on OS12 and will do some digging to get the size back down. Steven -- = Steven M. Parrish - gpg fingerprint: 4B6C 8357 059E B7ED 8095 0FD6 1F4B EDA0 A9A6 13C0 http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: Nickname: SMParrish Channels: #fedora-kde, #fedora-olpc, #fedora-edu, #sugar, #packagekit ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Where is Sugar 0.82 used besides in the OLPC ?
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 06:58:22AM -0600, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: Are there other platforms in use where Sugar 0.82 is installed ? Debian Lenny. CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Where is Sugar 0.82 used besides in the OLPC ?
I came across a remark to the effect that "Works with Sugar 0.82" in an ASLO description is NOT the same as "Works with OLPC 8.2.x". Are there other platforms in use where Sugar 0.82 is installed ? mikus ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
