Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
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 deps >> and the like the other day in around 15 mins (plus the time it takes >> to construct the actual filesystem etc). I can post the kickstart file >> somewhere if your interested in using it as a base. The image it >> produced has a boot issue that I need to get time to fix (or work out >> why its got root fs issues) but it was a quick demo to see if it >> helped. > > I heard about these (appliance tools) from Reuben. Any documentation > you can post would be highly useful. There are a lot of ways to achieve > a similar result, and a lot of people appear to have duplicated effort > as a result. I think this is good, as it gives us some degree of > selection moving forward. Eventually we need to coalesce effort around > one system if we are going to update OLPC's build infrastructure > successfully. The kick start file can be found on my fedora space [1] and the commands I used were essentially appliance-creator --name OLPC-4 --config olpc-4.ks and if you use virtmanage the following command to import it. virt-image OLPC-4/OLPC-4.xml All these sort of tools are what's used to create fedora. Things like mock and koji from the build system side of things and livecd-tools and appliance-tools and the like to build the livecds etc. So from a development point of view they're probably the direction to be headed. jkatz who is around on fedora-devel (and de...@laptop too I think) would be the one to shed more light in this direction. > FWIW: The boot issue might be related to nash's mount command not > working for jffs2. The quick and dirty way to get around it was to drop > busybox into an initramfs and change the root partition mount line in > the init script to use busybox's mount command instead of nash's. Found > nash extremely unweildy and am curious why it is used in the initramfs. > The initrd I produced is: > http://dev.laptop.org/~erik/rpmxo/initrd.img-2.6.25-20080925.1.olpc.f10b654367d7065.busybox > (It is built against the stock 8.2-767 kernel using stock Fedora > initramfs-tools, I just unpacked it and dropped busybox and its library > deps in and made the afformentioned hack to init.) I specified a ext3 fs so it would be easier to deal with on my laptop so it might not be so easy :( but I think it might be the device I used or something. >> I think this is what you are after. There are still some issues with >> packages pulling in too many deps and as time permits I'm trying to >> work through most of these issues while not having to fork half the >> distribution which in turn makes it more work for the OLPC guys. Its a >> fine line. > > Yes. This seems to be endemic, but it appears to be generally a problem > for systems which don't get stretched in this direction (I have seen the > same kind of bloat while testing Ubuntu builds). Its one that quite a few in Fedora are well aware of and people are slowly moving towards. There are a number of SIGs (special interest groups) that are looking to reduce them from different directions. I also hope the push from GNOME to get rid of libgnome/bonobo/gnomevfs etc should settle down and reduce a lot of them before long too. eg most gnome 2.24 now don't depend on gnomevfs but some of the bigger apps like firefox always trail. >> I can help you as much as possible, I'm relatively free for the next >> couple of days but will be then travelling over the next couple of >> weeks so will have limited connectivity. > > Great! Any way you'd like to help. Paring down dependencies is > crucial. 'Minimal' package lists would be also very helpful. I am > hacking mine together and I'm worried I might miss critical things that > would be obvious to a more experienced Fedora developer. Critical packages? They should be auto pulled in by yum. Or do you mean by paring down dependencies in actual packages. If the later let me know what the packages are so I can review changes and see if we can't just get them upstream (in a lot of cases we can split some of the deps out to sub packages in other cases they might be superfluous). Or maybe I've missed the point too :) > One package-level curiosity I've had is how to auto-remove packages > which were automatically installed to satisfy the dependencies of a > manually installed package after said packge is removed. Well in the case of appliance tools that create images on the fly it just won't pull them in. For already installed systems I'm not sure there is for auto remove but there are some tools that identify unused deps. I have a note of some of them somewhere, I'll try and dig details out. Cheers, Peter [1] http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/olpc/ ___ Devel mailing li
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
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. > > > > 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 used to do. The experience of building a Fedora > > system from 'scratch' contrasts starkly with what we find in Debian, > > where debootstrapping is a common development pattern which is > > well-supported by the community. > > > > It can be done, and I am going to seek as much help from the Fedora > > community in doing so as possible. It just isn't easy and I have felt > > like there are a lot of problems in using Fedora in this fashion which > > will have to be resolved to make it easy for deployments to use such a > > build script. > > > > (I sincerely hope someone flames me here as any attention to this issue > > is good attention.) > > 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 deps > and the like the other day in around 15 mins (plus the time it takes > to construct the actual filesystem etc). I can post the kickstart file > somewhere if your interested in using it as a base. The image it > produced has a boot issue that I need to get time to fix (or work out > why its got root fs issues) but it was a quick demo to see if it > helped. I heard about these (appliance tools) from Reuben. Any documentation you can post would be highly useful. There are a lot of ways to achieve a similar result, and a lot of people appear to have duplicated effort as a result. I think this is good, as it gives us some degree of selection moving forward. Eventually we need to coalesce effort around one system if we are going to update OLPC's build infrastructure successfully. FWIW: The boot issue might be related to nash's mount command not working for jffs2. The quick and dirty way to get around it was to drop busybox into an initramfs and change the root partition mount line in the init script to use busybox's mount command instead of nash's. Found nash extremely unweildy and am curious why it is used in the initramfs. The initrd I produced is: http://dev.laptop.org/~erik/rpmxo/initrd.img-2.6.25-20080925.1.olpc.f10b654367d7065.busybox (It is built against the stock 8.2-767 kernel using stock Fedora initramfs-tools, I just unpacked it and dropped busybox and its library deps in and made the afformentioned hack to init.) > I think this is what you are after. There are still some issues with > packages pulling in too many deps and as time permits I'm trying to > work through most of these issues while not having to fork half the > distribution which in turn makes it more work for the OLPC guys. Its a > fine line. Yes. This seems to be endemic, but it appears to be generally a problem for systems which don't get stretched in this direction (I have seen the same kind of bloat while testing Ubuntu builds). > I can help you as much as possible, I'm relatively free for the next > couple of days but will be then travelling over the next couple of > weeks so will have limited connectivity. Great! Any way you'd like to help. Paring down dependencies is crucial. 'Minimal' package lists would be also very helpful. I am hacking mine together and I'm worried I might miss critical things that would be obvious to a more experienced Fedora developer. One package-level curiosity I've had is how to auto-remove packages which were automatically installed to satisfy the dependencies of a manually installed package after said packge is removed. > I have no issue with the flames, but would much prefer to help you out > than flame back :-D And I prefer to cooperate as well! Thanks, Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
>> 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. > Getting a bare minimum of functionality is not something which these > tools are typically used to do. The experience of building a Fedora > system from 'scratch' contrasts starkly with what we find in Debian, > where debootstrapping is a common development pattern which is > well-supported by the community. > > It can be done, and I am going to seek as much help from the Fedora > community in doing so as possible. It just isn't easy and I have felt > like there are a lot of problems in using Fedora in this fashion which > will have to be resolved to make it easy for deployments to use such a > build script. > > (I sincerely hope someone flames me here as any attention to this issue > is good attention.) 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 deps and the like the other day in around 15 mins (plus the time it takes to construct the actual filesystem etc). I can post the kickstart file somewhere if your interested in using it as a base. The image it produced has a boot issue that I need to get time to fix (or work out why its got root fs issues) but it was a quick demo to see if it helped. I think this is what you are after. There are still some issues with packages pulling in too many deps and as time permits I'm trying to work through most of these issues while not having to fork half the distribution which in turn makes it more work for the OLPC guys. Its a fine line. I can help you as much as possible, I'm relatively free for the next couple of days but will be then travelling over the next couple of weeks so will have limited connectivity. I have no issue with the flames, but would much prefer to help you out than flame back :-D Peter [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApplianceTools https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApplianceTools ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
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 used to do. The experience of building a Fedora > > system from 'scratch' contrasts starkly with what we find in Debian, > > where debootstrapping is a common development pattern which is > > well-supported by the community. > > > > It can be done, and I am going to seek as much help from the Fedora > > community in doing so as possible. It just isn't easy and I have felt > > like there are a lot of problems in using Fedora in this fashion which > > will have to be resolved to make it easy for deployments to use such a > > build script. > > > > (I sincerely hope someone flames me here as any attention to this issue > > is good attention.) > > > sure :) why aren't you building off mstone's work on Puritan? It seems like > a lot of duplication of effort; unless I'm missing something, the biggest > difference seems to be that yours may be more debian-like. For one, Puritan is a multi-file python framework, which, for a build script which I would like to be as short and clear as possible, may be overkill. Shellscript is plenty concise for this work. I was able to get everything done that I needed without the script getting unweildy. I was additionally able to directly pull in some of the bashisms from the xodist toolset which deal with partitioned image creation, configuration heredocs, etc. (thank you dilinger and xodist devs). Additionally, writing my own simple build system was a great way to work through all the issues involved in setting up a given distribution to run on the XO. I came away from this work with a much better understanding of what issues our software development faces and the specific issues involved in setting up Fedora on the XO (such as nash and initramfsen jffs2 mounting woes). Otherwise, I don't think it really matters, and think that Michael and I should work together going forward. If Puritan does exactly what I have been trying to do and more, then I support working with it and will move that way. That said, if there is interest in having the 'simplest' build system possible, I can continue work on the rpmxo buildscripts. Hope that explains my perspective. Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
> 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. well one word really. dependencies! Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO
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 of packages to add, since I see some > deps in there we don't want, e.g.: > > --> Processing Dependency: texlive = 2007-35.fc10 for package: kpathsea > --> Processing Dependency: httpd >= 2.2.0 for package: gnome-user-share > > Here's the list of dependency errors: > > --> Finished Dependency Resolution > gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 from olpc_development has > depsolving problems > --> Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by > package gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) > gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 from olpc_development has > depsolving problems > --> Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by > package gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) > cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 from olpc_development has > depsolving problems > --> Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed > by package cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) > cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 from olpc_development has > depsolving problems > -> Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed > by package cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) > Error: Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is > needed by package cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) > Error: Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is > needed by package cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) > Error: Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by > package gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) > Error: Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by > package gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) Do you have an old OLPC-3/8.2 repo hanging around. Those should all be either fc10 (unless they weren't recompiled in the F-10 rawhide) or olpc4 so you shouldn't be seeing any olpc3/fc9 packages. Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
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/fedora-olpc-list/2008-December/msg00022.html > > > > To reiterate, the goal is one distribution with two Desktop Environments > > (Sugar and one "standard" one). > > What of the case where all the functionality of Sugar can be replicated > using a properly-configured standard desktop environment? (Strawman > this sentence may be, but I think we should be open to this option > moving forward.) > > > I think the main work now is to pick the minimal package list that we > > need and will fit on the XO NAND. > > This is *the* work of making builds. > > > Can anyone get a slimmed down Fedora 10 with window manager running on > > an XO? > > Yes. I have a build tool which does so. See: > >http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=users/erik/rpmxo;a=summary > > or just: > >git clone git://dev.laptop.org/users/erik/rpmxo > > The build tool depends on the current development version of rinse, a > rpm bootstrapping utility. For our testing purposes I have included a > copy of the rinse mercurial repository in that git tree > (http://rinse.repository.steve.org.uk/). > > Then install rinse by following the instructions in the > rinse.repository.steve.org.uk directory in the rpmxo repo created by the > above git command. You will need perl, rpm, and wget (note the > dependencies listed at http://packages.ubuntu.com/intrepid/rinse). > Rinse manages a variety of common issues encountered when build and > re-building images, such as caching rpms, bootstrapping yum, and running > post-install scripts. It does so in a relatively platform-independent > manner. The author and I have been working together to update the > system for Fedora 10 and to increase its configurability. (Please note > that I have submitted changes to the author's repo which may not yet be > reflected in a fresh clone, this is why I have temporarily added the > repository to the rpmxo git tree.) > > To run the build script do: > >sudo ./initchroot.sh > > ... in the rpmxo git repository directory yielded by the git clone > command above. > > By default this will make f10.root. Then generate an image to flash > onto an unsecured laptop by using: > >sudo ./mkjffs2.sh fc10.root fc10.img > > This will create the .crc and .img files which are required for OFW to > flash the image onto the laptop. Putting these on a USB key and typing: > >copy-nand u:\fc10.img > > ... at the OFW prompt on an XO will flash the system onto the internal > NAND. Rebooting should yield a prompt > > This procedure is still in alpha. Interested parties should test and > immediately inform me of any issues encountered. > > > > 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. > Getting a bare minimum of functionality is not something which these > tools are typically used to do. The experience of building a Fedora > system from 'scratch' contrasts starkly with what we find in Debian, > where debootstrapping is a common development pattern which is > well-supported by the community. > > It can be done, and I am going to seek as much help from the Fedora > community in doing so as possible. It just isn't easy and I have felt > like there are a lot of problems in using Fedora in this fashion which > will have to be resolved to make it easy for deployments to use such a > build script. > > (I sincerely hope someone flames me here as any attention to this issue > is good attention.) sure :) why aren't you building off mstone's work on Puritan? It seems like a lot of duplication of effort; unless I'm missing something, the biggest difference seems to be that yours may be more debian-like. Bobby > Erik > ___ > 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: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO
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 of packages to add, since I see some deps in there we don't want, e.g.: --> Processing Dependency: texlive = 2007-35.fc10 for package: kpathsea --> Processing Dependency: httpd >= 2.2.0 for package: gnome-user-share Here's the list of dependency errors: --> Finished Dependency Resolution gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 from olpc_development has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by package gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 from olpc_development has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by package gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 from olpc_development has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed by package cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 from olpc_development has depsolving problems -> Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed by package cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) Error: Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed by package cyrus-sasl-md5-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) Error: Missing Dependency: cyrus-sasl-lib = 2.1.22-15.fc9 is needed by package cyrus-sasl-plain-2.1.22-15.fc9.i386 (olpc_development) Error: Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by package gnome-python2-gnome-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) Error: Missing Dependency: gnome-python2 = 2.22.1-3.olpc3 is needed by package gnome-python2-bonobo-2.22.1-3.olpc3.i386 (olpc_development) Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO
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 Environment" > * http://dev.laptop.org/git/users/cscott/sugar-xfce-control should > be > portable to GNOME in a mechanical (s/xfce/gnome/g) fashion. > * follow the rest of the instructions in: > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Xfce#Install_Sugar.2FXFCE_Control_Panel > to launch GNOME if it's been selected in the control panel > * write a GNOME menu item/desktop icon to switch back to Sugar Just curious - why gnome? Isn't xfce supposed to be much lighter on resources? - Bert - ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO
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 groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Environment" >* http://dev.laptop.org/git/users/cscott/sugar-xfce-control should be > portable to GNOME in a mechanical (s/xfce/gnome/g) fashion. >* follow the rest of the instructions in: > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Xfce#Install_Sugar.2FXFCE_Control_Panel > to launch GNOME if it's been selected in the control panel >* write a GNOME menu item/desktop icon to switch back to Sugar That seems sufficient to meet the requirement. Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
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 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 "standard" one). > > > > I think the main work now is to pick the minimal package list that we > > need and will fit on the XO NAND. > > > > Can anyone get a slimmed down Fedora 10 with window manager running on > > an XO? > > yes. install any joyride. > > i'm being flip, of course, but please be precise. our installs > _are_ "slimmed down fedora" releases. and sugar _is_ a window > manager. > > (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.) > > paul > =- > paul fox, p...@laptop.org > give one laptop, get one laptop --- http://www.laptop.com/xo > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO
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/cscott/sugar-xfce-control should be portable to GNOME in a mechanical (s/xfce/gnome/g) fashion. * follow the rest of the instructions in: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Xfce#Install_Sugar.2FXFCE_Control_Panel to launch GNOME if it's been selected in the control panel * write a GNOME menu item/desktop icon to switch back to Sugar - Chris. -- Chris Ball ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
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 Environments > (Sugar and one "standard" one). > > I think the main work now is to pick the minimal package list that we > need and will fit on the XO NAND. > > Can anyone get a slimmed down Fedora 10 with window manager running on > an XO? yes. install any joyride. i'm being flip, of course, but please be precise. our installs _are_ "slimmed down fedora" releases. and sugar _is_ a window manager. (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.) paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org give one laptop, get one laptop --- http://www.laptop.com/xo ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
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 goal is one distribution with two Desktop Environments > (Sugar and one "standard" one). What of the case where all the functionality of Sugar can be replicated using a properly-configured standard desktop environment? (Strawman this sentence may be, but I think we should be open to this option moving forward.) > I think the main work now is to pick the minimal package list that we > need and will fit on the XO NAND. This is *the* work of making builds. > Can anyone get a slimmed down Fedora 10 with window manager running on > an XO? Yes. I have a build tool which does so. See: http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=users/erik/rpmxo;a=summary or just: git clone git://dev.laptop.org/users/erik/rpmxo The build tool depends on the current development version of rinse, a rpm bootstrapping utility. For our testing purposes I have included a copy of the rinse mercurial repository in that git tree (http://rinse.repository.steve.org.uk/). Then install rinse by following the instructions in the rinse.repository.steve.org.uk directory in the rpmxo repo created by the above git command. You will need perl, rpm, and wget (note the dependencies listed at http://packages.ubuntu.com/intrepid/rinse). Rinse manages a variety of common issues encountered when build and re-building images, such as caching rpms, bootstrapping yum, and running post-install scripts. It does so in a relatively platform-independent manner. The author and I have been working together to update the system for Fedora 10 and to increase its configurability. (Please note that I have submitted changes to the author's repo which may not yet be reflected in a fresh clone, this is why I have temporarily added the repository to the rpmxo git tree.) To run the build script do: sudo ./initchroot.sh ... in the rpmxo git repository directory yielded by the git clone command above. By default this will make f10.root. Then generate an image to flash onto an unsecured laptop by using: sudo ./mkjffs2.sh fc10.root fc10.img This will create the .crc and .img files which are required for OFW to flash the image onto the laptop. Putting these on a USB key and typing: copy-nand u:\fc10.img ... at the OFW prompt on an XO will flash the system onto the internal NAND. Rebooting should yield a prompt This procedure is still in alpha. Interested parties should test and immediately inform me of any issues encountered. > 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. Getting a bare minimum of functionality is not something which these tools are typically used to do. The experience of building a Fedora system from 'scratch' contrasts starkly with what we find in Debian, where debootstrapping is a common development pattern which is well-supported by the community. It can be done, and I am going to seek as much help from the Fedora community in doing so as possible. It just isn't easy and I have felt like there are a lot of problems in using Fedora in this fashion which will have to be resolved to make it easy for deployments to use such a build script. (I sincerely hope someone flames me here as any attention to this issue is good attention.) Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)
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 "standard" one). I think the main work now is to pick the minimal package list that we need and will fit on the XO NAND. Can anyone get a slimmed down Fedora 10 with window manager running on an XO? If so, can you record the packages and available space in the specifications section here? http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Run_Fedora_applications_on_XO RTFM answers with URLs also welcome. Chris and Erik, Where are we with getting a proof of concept for this feature in place? You both mentioned some work in this area (Chris on resurrecting something Scott did and Erik on other work). Let me know the status and next steps. 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. Thanks, Greg S ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
+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 simple nice .xfce4/ is all it takes for a fair comparison, sounds like a simple task any geek can do (thus the serious proposal to ask OLPCNews). 2008/12/4 Jameson Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 > the best choice, for speed. > > A good fraction of this work would be perfect for a newbie volunteer. > Getting the volume control working, choosing how to trim the fat from F10, > most of that kind of stuff is the kind of linux install fiddling that many > people who aren't even ultra-hackers have been doing for decades now. If we > got something working well and looking good, even using a handmade install > that was well documented in somebody's blog, it would be a good first step. > > I bet if we posted to OLPCNews with the truth - there are definitely going > to be, and probably already are, some countries that are scared of pure > sugar, and are considering dual boot, but would be mollified by a nice > polished XFCE/sugar dual-desktop - we would have new volunteers aplenty. > I'll let the discussion run and hope someone else will do the honors of > writing a page on the wiki and a call-out to OLPCNews, but I can do it if > others agree it's a good idea. > > Jameson > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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) tells us >> that we might be able to get something acceptable, perhaps requiring >> some package rework. >> >> Then we'd just need to turn Scott's Sugar+XFCE into a Sugar+GNOME, >> and work out how much space we can use for GNOME apps.. >> >> - Chris. >> -- >> Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- Sebastian Silva Iniciativa FuenteLibre http://blog.sebastiansilva.com/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 the best choice, for speed. A good fraction of this work would be perfect for a newbie volunteer. Getting the volume control working, choosing how to trim the fat from F10, most of that kind of stuff is the kind of linux install fiddling that many people who aren't even ultra-hackers have been doing for decades now. If we got something working well and looking good, even using a handmade install that was well documented in somebody's blog, it would be a good first step. I bet if we posted to OLPCNews with the truth - there are definitely going to be, and probably already are, some countries that are scared of pure sugar, and are considering dual boot, but would be mollified by a nice polished XFCE/sugar dual-desktop - we would have new volunteers aplenty. I'll let the discussion run and hope someone else will do the honors of writing a page on the wiki and a call-out to OLPCNews, but I can do it if others agree it's a good idea. Jameson On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) tells us > that we might be able to get something acceptable, perhaps requiring > some package rework. > > Then we'd just need to turn Scott's Sugar+XFCE into a Sugar+GNOME, > and work out how much space we can use for GNOME apps.. > > - Chris. > -- > Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ___ > 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: Fedora 10 on XO
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. User adoption is largely driven by perception, as tied to their environment. This is the demand side of the equation. GNOME, XFCE, Fluxbox, etc are on the supply side and RAM disk space, processor etc. are our constraints. I'm going with the assumptions that 1) most G1G1 users already have a primary computer and 2) given that Windows has a large market share, G1G1'ers are Windows users. The problem is to assess the needs of G1G1 users and *then* try to fit GNOME, XFCE etc. all within the constraints mentioned above. IMO starting with the supply side will be problematic. Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ > 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 desktop, of > course). > > Thanks to everyone else, too, who is contributing to this discussion, as > it's very important to move this topic into the real world of "what is > possible, what would it look like, and what compromises would we have to > make?" > >- Ed > > > On 12/4/08 10:08 PM, "Chris Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. >> >> I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space >> does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card >> and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we >> can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, >> though.. >> >> - Chris. > > > ___ > 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: Fedora 10 on XO
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 space needed. I think we would consider >> losing that feature if needed. tbd. > > I'm curious if anyone knows how commonly used this feature is in > deployments. I think we'd all hope that it hasn't been necessary very often, but as with any backup feature, its the presence of the capability that's important, right? I do think it serves an important purpose in conveying and facilitating the ideals of Sugar. - Eben > Erik > ___ > 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: Fedora 10 on XO
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 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 > sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months > ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the "faster" builds. > > Thanks, > > - Chris. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 not needed by the time an image is qualified for deployment in the schools... Thanks, Greg S Erik Garrison 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 space needed. I think we would consider >> losing that feature if needed. tbd. > > I'm curious if anyone knows how commonly used this feature is in > deployments. > > Erik > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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. I'm curious if anyone knows how commonly used this feature is in deployments. Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 desktop, of course). Thanks to everyone else, too, who is contributing to this discussion, as it's very important to move this topic into the real world of "what is possible, what would it look like, and what compromises would we have to make?" - Ed On 12/4/08 10:08 PM, "Chris Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. > > I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space > does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card > and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we > can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, > though.. > > - Chris. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
>>> 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 agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. >> >> I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space >> does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card >> and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we >> can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, >> though.. >> >> - Chris. > > Well, in the early days of the "Fedora on XO" project, I was working > with Jim on evaluating the possibility of reducing Fedora's image size > heavily to make it e.g. fit on the NAND or a SD card. To give you an > idea where we landed: The latest tries with XFCE resulted in an 300 MB > image. Using GNOME didn't change a lot, but if I remember correctly, it > was a few MBs bigger... I don't think it would be too much bigger than the current joyride image (dependant on what apps you want to add) gnome is quite dependant on e-d-s but we already have the likes of xulrunner, abiword, totem etc for apps. The foot print to add their "standard" interfaces isn't massive. Then you need a windows manager, nautilus and gnome-panel. The question is then what deps they pull in and filing bugs to get them as slimmed down as possible. Some of the new deps will be pulled in anyway because Sugar wants to add support for things like printing. Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> > 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 agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. > > I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space > does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card > and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we > can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, > though.. I think it should be more achievable once libgnome and friends are gone along with some splitting of some of the 'extra' features in some main packages out into sub packages. This ties quite nicely in with a NetBook "Fedora Mini" spin I've been looking at, which is how I got side tracked into OLPC :-) Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 the best >> judge. :-) > > I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. > > I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space > does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card > and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we > can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, > though.. > > - Chris. Well, in the early days of the "Fedora on XO" project, I was working with Jim on evaluating the possibility of reducing Fedora's image size heavily to make it e.g. fit on the NAND or a SD card. To give you an idea where we landed: The latest tries with XFCE resulted in an 300 MB image. Using GNOME didn't change a lot, but if I remember correctly, it was a few MBs bigger... --Sebastian ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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) tells us that we might be able to get something acceptable, perhaps requiring some package rework. Then we'd just need to turn Scott's Sugar+XFCE into a Sugar+GNOME, and work out how much space we can use for GNOME apps.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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, so i may not be the best > > judge. :-) > > I agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. > > I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space > does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card > and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we > can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, > though.. debxo manages to fit a gnome build in a small enough space to fit on the NAND a listing of a recent released build (the jffs images, since I think that will be the best match) [ ] awesome.dat 18-Nov-2008 02:41 334M [ ] awesome.img 18-Nov-2008 02:40 224K [ ] base.dat18-Nov-2008 02:55 157M [ ] base.img18-Nov-2008 02:55 105K [ ] gnome.dat 18-Nov-2008 03:24 436M [ ] gnome.img 18-Nov-2008 03:23 293K [ ] kde.dat 18-Nov-2008 03:58 536M [ ] kde.img 18-Nov-2008 03:57 360K [ ] lxde.dat18-Nov-2008 04:20 220M [ ] lxde.img18-Nov-2008 04:20 147K [ ] sugar.dat 18-Nov-2008 10:14 357M [ ] sugar.img 18-Nov-2008 10:13 239K I haven't done much with the gnome build (other than boot it a few times), but I've messed with the kde build more and there is definantly room to slim it down further. and I hate to say it, but even gnome and kde result is a more responsive machine than sugar. David Lang ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 agree that the choice is yet to be made and isn't totally obvious. I prefer using GNOME, but our current answer for "How much disk space does it require to run Fedora 10 and GNOME and apps?" is "a 4GB SD card and 256M of swap", so it seems hard to get there from here. Maybe we can run GNOME and some tiny set of apps without blowing the NAND budget, though.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 > sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months > ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the "faster" builds. 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. :-) paul =- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] give one laptop, get one laptop --- http://www.laptop.com/xo ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 from off to gnome in 90 seconds. This is from the SD card. Running gentoo is harder for me because most of my machines are Fedora based. Mark On Dec 4, 2008 Thursday, at 6:44:20:0, Chris Ball 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 > sounds like we should resurrect Scott's work from about six months > ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the "faster" builds. > > Thanks, > > - Chris. > -- > Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ___ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 Scott's work from about six months ago on Xfce-and-Sugar in the "faster" builds. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 even edit the requirement to make it more crystal clear if you think my wording there is confusing. I'll see the edits and roll back anything which I think changes the fundamental requirement. Thanks, Greg S Martin Dengler wrote: > 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 too. > > Here are some comments on the rest of Chris's questions: > > * So we'd ship two different distributions on the NAND? > GS - Yes. > > * Would they live on different partitions? > GS - Prefer a single partition. I added a requirement to say that > libraries and files should be hard linked so that any code is used only > once by both implementations. Hard linking is not necessary. We can just ship two window managers. Code is shared as it typically would be between both on a Linux system. To my knowledge C. Scott has done so already. Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
> * 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 interfaces that can be switched between (sort of like being able to switch between KDE and GNOME if you have them both installed). EG Things like xulrunner are large so why would we want two copies when we could use one and switch the interface? If I've missed something and that is the aim, from following some of the Fedora on XO threads on the various Fedora lists I think XFCE ran reasonably well and is reasonably lightweight so I'm not sure if that's an option? Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 ship two different distributions on the NAND? GS - Yes. * Would they live on different partitions? GS - Prefer a single partition. I added a requirement to say that libraries and files should be hard linked so that any code is used only once by both implementations. * How will we allocate space between them? GS - The goal is that they (Sugar and "standard" X-Window manager) are both just different "views" of the same image. So we don't allocate space between them. * How much extra space on the NAND are we going to use? GS - Not sure. How much do we need, minimum? It has to be less than 1GB - user file space but exact amount still needs definition. * 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. Keep them coming! FYI for the devel list, I pasted the original e-mail below. Thanks, Greg S Hi All, I am working on requirements for the next major release of the XO, 9.1.0 (see: overview at: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/9.1.0). There are two major requirements which would benefit from expert Fedora knowledge: - Rebase to Fedora 10 - Run Fedora applications The first draft requirements on them are defined here: 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? A few other questions (RTFM with URL responses OK): 1 - How big (MBs) are the supported X window managers? If we have to choose one or two which should we include? 2 - Is there a Netbook implementation of Fedora? We're going to need a bare minimum of default installed applications. Let me know if there are suggestions on which to include. 3 - Does Fedora 10 supports 802.11s? I will do more research on those but if anyone has a quick answer handy it will save me time. Also, send me a note if you're interested in working on either of those or anything on our not-yet-prioritized roadmap http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap. Thanks, Greg Smith OLPC Product Manager Erik Garrison wrote: > 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: >> >>"Must allow switching between Fedora 10 with a conventional desktop >>manager and XO running Sugar, and back. Must/should? allow this on >>all XOs shipping with XO release 9.1.0. That is, an XO which ships >>with Sugar" >> >> Fedora 10 (at least, as shipped on SD for G1G1) doesn't fit on our NAND >> at the moment, and requires swap, so this one needs to become much more >> concrete. > > 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. > > Erik > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 ship two different distributions on the NAND? * Would they live on different partitions? * How will we allocate space between them? * Will they be upgraded separately? * How much extra space on the NAND are we going to use? * 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? Anyway, you get the idea -- this brings up a massive amount of issues, so we should be talking about it more than we have been. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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: > >"Must allow switching between Fedora 10 with a conventional desktop >manager and XO running Sugar, and back. Must/should? allow this on >all XOs shipping with XO release 9.1.0. That is, an XO which ships >with Sugar" > > Fedora 10 (at least, as shipped on SD for G1G1) doesn't fit on our NAND > at the moment, and requires swap, so this one needs to become much more > concrete. 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. Erik ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 10 on XO
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 manager and XO running Sugar, and back. Must/should? allow this on all XOs shipping with XO release 9.1.0. That is, an XO which ships with Sugar" Fedora 10 (at least, as shipped on SD for G1G1) doesn't fit on our NAND at the moment, and requires swap, so this one needs to become much more concrete. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
