Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
> It would be good to improve the situation, but as was discussed in the > past, yum does not seem to work very well on the XO. Manually tracking > the relevant upstream security updates would require some effort. My own preference is to not work with "static" software - but to apply as many updates as possible. [On the hope that more existing bugs are being fixed than new bugs being introduced.] Accordingly, I constantly use yum to apply whatever RPMs are available in the usual repositories. The only time this got me into trouble was when I had to revert to an older "OLPC" Network Manager (though its package name omitted the string 'olpc'). because at that time the more-recent "Fedora" Network Manager lacked some code that the OLPC depended upon. [I also make sure to NOT apply a "plain" kernel if a build was originally compiled to include an "olpc" kernel.] I run my XO systems with an external swap partition (and with enough room in /var/cache/yum) - and yum works well for me even when applying more than 70 package updates at one time. mikus ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
El Mon, 31-05-2010 a las 08:19 +1200, Tim McNamara escribió: > Just for my knowledge, does Fedora have an equivalent to Ubuntu's > long-term support releases? Yes, it's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and it comes with commercial support. If you want a free-beer equivalent with no guarantees, CentOS is a bit-for-bit exact copy of RHEL, except for branding, update sources and a few other things. > > > 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. This can also be achieved by choosing an arbitrary release of Fedora and sticking to it for 2 years, as we did. One might argue that the Fedora release would no longer get any security and stability updates after some time. Well, this is true but irrelevant to us, because the the XO OS does not use the standard Fedora update tools. So far, all XO systems have remained frozen to whatever packages were in the Fedora repository the day the build was made, without picking up any of the updates issued subsequently. In practice, this is not as scary as it may sound, because the attack surface of an XO is indeed very limited: xulrunner (Browse) and telepathy-gabble (WAN collaboration). It would be good to improve the situation, but as was discussed in the past, yum does not seem to work very well on the XO. Manually tracking the relevant upstream security updates would require some effort. Until someone offers to do this work, all we can do is bury our heads under the sand and pretend there's no problem :-) -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: > On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, 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 >> >> 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: > On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, 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 >> >> 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-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
CentOS ? On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: > On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, 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 >> > >> 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-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > -- Gonzalo Odiard Responsable de Desarrollo Sistemas Australes ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, 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 > > 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/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/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On 25 May 2010 18:12, Peter Robinson 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Bernie Innocenti 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/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/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 23:12, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti 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-kernel&m=126748102722641&w=2 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 23:12, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti 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-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/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/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote: > On 05/25/2010 08:16 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, 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. >>> >>> 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/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 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. >> >> 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, 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. > > 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
