Re: Fedora Desktop on XO
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 team. The patches I described (e.g. desktop icon creation) appear to have been backported from the development version of XFCE. Is backporting patches from the mainline XFCE development against policy? There isn't a strict policy against anything, there is a set of recommendations outlined at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment Backporting is usually more accepted since the upstream path is clear and we don't have carry them forever. If you have specific suggestions (and pointers to those patches if any), then please report them in bugzilla and the maintainers involved can consider them on a case by case basis. If you wish to discuss ideas, post to fedora-devel list or ping nirik (Kevin Fenzi) in #fedora-devel. I am mether on irc and available on all the usual channels as well. Rahul ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora Desktop on XO
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 supported than any other desktop. I think the XFCE SIG (Special Interest Group would somewhat disagree https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Xfce As the maintainer of the the Xfce Live CD as well as a member of the SIG, I can vouch for that. Xfce is a pretty well supported desktop in Fedora in as much as any desktop is. The maintainers take care of bugs quickly, new releases gets pulled in fast etc. We don't have as many people working on it but it is a smaller community upstream as well. 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. Rahul ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Server-devel] pam-sotp rpm package
Douglas Bagnall wrote: hi Rahul, server-devel, I've made a new pam_sotp RPM, which differs only in that it is compiled with CFLAGS=-fno-stack-protector. I made this change because the original was causing errors like this: PAM unable to dlopen(/lib/security/pam_sotp.so): \ /lib/security/pam_sotp.so: undefined symbol: __stack_chk_fail_local It makes me nervous to be turning off stack smashing checks on pam modules, notwithstanding that this error seems to be caused by gcc incompatibilities (-fstack-protector is newish) rather than any actual deficiency. Does anyone have a better patch or understanding of the cause? In similar looking cases Google suggests linking using gcc rather than ld, but my rpm-fu is too weak to cause that. I suggest posting to fedora-devel list and asking for help. Turning off security features makes you worry and quite rightfully so and it is not allowed by the Fedora packaging guidelines anyway. I offered to be a package monkey only to help OLPC and have no particular insight into the code to help you further. Rahul ___ Server-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: [Server-devel] Pungi minimal installer, comps.xml trick
Martin Langhoff wrote: Playing with a minimal Pungi kickstart file I get an install CD of about 500MB. If I add the xs-pkgs dependencies, things balloon to 759MB, no longer fitting in a CD. My guess is that a good 1/3 of that is related to the graphical installer and related dependencies which we don't want on the installed CD. It's not a complete deal breaker, but I prefer to distribute images that are small, and ideally fit on 1 CD. Jerry, you mentioned that fiddling with comps.xml was an option? How do you do that? ;-) You fiddle with the comps.xml file and redefine packages that are included in the different groups that are part of your compose like @core. If they are not direct dependencies, you might be able to reduce the content. Rahul ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: [Server-devel] Need help: mounting usb devices on headless machines
Martin Langhoff wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Martin Langhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, I've imported the history into git, made some minor changes and it installs and works on F7. git git://dev.laptop.org/users/martin/usbmount.git gitweb http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=users/martin/usbmount.git;a=summary Right, Makefile and spec file in the repo linked above, initial SRPM right here. http://fedora.laptop.org/xs/testing/olpc/7/source/SRPMS/usbmount-0.15.4.olpc-1.xs7.src.rpm It's a trivial rpm, review patches welcome Are you going to submit it for review in Fedora? Rahul ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: Need help: mounting usb devices on headless machines
Martin Langhoff wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Martin Langhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, I've imported the history into git, made some minor changes and it installs and works on F7. git git://dev.laptop.org/users/martin/usbmount.git gitweb http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=users/martin/usbmount.git;a=summary Right, Makefile and spec file in the repo linked above, initial SRPM right here. http://fedora.laptop.org/xs/testing/olpc/7/source/SRPMS/usbmount-0.15.4.olpc-1.xs7.src.rpm It's a trivial rpm, review patches welcome Are you going to submit it for review in Fedora? Rahul ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
