Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-12 Thread Erik Garrison
Here is an image builder which makes Fedora 10-based desktop images for the XO. They use XFCE. Currently there is at least one outstanding bug, which is that network manager applet won't start because of security configuration problems with consolekit. http://dev.laptop.org/git/users/erik/rpmxo

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-12 Thread Christoph Wickert
Am Montag, den 12.01.2009, 14:41 -0500 schrieb Erik Garrison: Here is an image builder which makes Fedora 10-based desktop images for the XO. They use XFCE. Currently there is at least one outstanding bug, which is that network manager applet won't start because of security configuration

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-11 Thread Christoph Wickert
Am Dienstag, den 06.01.2009, 17:31 -0500 schrieb Erik Garrison: On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:54:24PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote: On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: Carlos Nazareno wrote: Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-09 Thread C. Scott Ananian
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Gilmore g...@toad.com wrote: I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE interface. Why I haven't pursued it yet is because the API for developing new gio backends is still private and our new backend would then need to live

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-09 Thread Tomeu Vizoso
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 09:21, C. Scott Ananian csc...@laptop.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Gilmore g...@toad.com wrote: I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE interface. Why I haven't pursued it yet is because the API for developing new gio

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-09 Thread Daniel Drake
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: For the evince vs sugar-evince I suspect we need to try and get the mainline evince split out into evince and evince-libs so that we can build sugar-evince against it similar to what we do with abiword and

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-09 Thread Eben Eliason
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 09:21, C. Scott Ananian csc...@laptop.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Gilmore g...@toad.com wrote: I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE interface.

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-08 Thread Peter Robinson
I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE interface. Why I haven't pursued it yet is because the API for developing new gio backends is still private and our new backend would then need to live inside the gvfs gnome module or as a patch in every distro. Aside from

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-08 Thread Peter Robinson
For the evince vs sugar-evince I suspect we need to try and get the mainline evince split out into evince and evince-libs so that we can build sugar-evince against it similar to what we do with abiword and write (I think that's its name). Yep, sounds good. When I get a sec I'll

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-07 Thread Erik Garrison
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 07:47:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Peter Robinson wrote: I don't believe that is true at all. I believe XFCE is an install option during a full install and there's a fully Fedora blessed XFCE spin available from Fedora here http://spins.fedoraproject.org/ . It

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-07 Thread Erik Garrison
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

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-07 Thread Rahul Sundaram
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

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Tomeu Vizoso
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 07:50, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: * Does not need to make it easy to share files between Fedora and Sugar. - assuming its all running from the same base OS and just switching GUIs this should be OK except for stuff stored in the journal possibly. If

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Peter, How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd requirements. Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GConf2-dbus, both ship the same .mo files) and evince (against sugar-evince,

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Erik Garrison
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:31:12PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote: Hi Peter, How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd requirements. Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GConf2-dbus,

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Greg Dekoenigsberg
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Erik Garrison wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:31:12PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote: Hi Peter, How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd requirements. Yep, it worked! I had RPM

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Chris Ball
Hi, Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I think there are significant differences in system resource consumption. Ed, maybe you can help here -- since this has been going back and forth for a while, could you help us come to/make a decision about whether

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Deepak Saxena
On Jan 06 2009, at 14:23, Chris Ball was caught saying: Hi, Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I think there are significant differences in system resource consumption. We had a long thread about whether to use GNOME or XFCE on devel@ last month.

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread pgf
chris wrote: Hi Peter, How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd requirements. Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GConf2-dbus, both ship the same .mo files) and

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Chris Ball
Hi, I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of the flash chip. With only 256MiB of RAM, we are bound to swap a lot. I'd feel more comfortable if we did flash-wide wear leveling using

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Chris Ball
Hi, what happens when you push the power button? i assume the laptop will suspend due to ohmd, but i think g-p-m is doing the same dbus listen, no? We can just set When power button is pressed: Do nothing in the g-p-m prefs. Yeah, ohmd is running/working. - Chris. -- Chris Ball

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Erik Garrison
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 02:23:24PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote: Hi, Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I think there are significant differences in system resource consumption. We had a long thread about whether to use GNOME or XFCE on devel@ last

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Carol Farlow Lerche
Another plug for Teapot's Intrepid Ibex install if you want an easy way to try the Ubuntu XFCE out on an SD card. I think it is quite beautiful. http://www.olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=4053.0 On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Erik Garrison e...@laptop.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Deepak Saxena
On Jan 06 2009, at 14:42, Chris Ball was caught saying: Hi, I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of the flash chip. With only 256MiB of RAM, we are bound to swap a lot. I'd feel

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Michael Stone
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:19:52PM -0800, Deepak Saxena wrote: On Jan 06 2009, at 14:42, Chris Ball was caught saying: Hi, I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of the flash chip. With

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Carlos Nazareno
I vote XFCE. Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool some time ago to measure the impact of switching from Actionscript 2.0 to 3.0. I called it TeddyMark and it has 16 instances of Teddy (a character we made for one of our games) running around the screen and an FPS

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
Carlos Nazareno wrote: Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not CPU. I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave differently in terms of background CPU overhead or cost of

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Michael Stone
Greg, I don't mean to be nasty, but I do feel the need to be blunt: On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:28:36PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: Hi Michael, We are definitely behind where I would like to be at this stage. How far behind? However, we'll only move the date when we must and we'll only do it

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Bert Freudenberg
On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: Carlos Nazareno wrote: Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not CPU. I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread david
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Chris Ball wrote: Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I think there are significant differences in system resource consumption. Ed, maybe you can help here -- since this has been going back and forth for a while, could you help us

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread david
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Bert Freudenberg wrote: On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: Carlos Nazareno wrote: Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not CPU. I personally have no

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread david
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: Carlos Nazareno wrote: Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not CPU. I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Carlos Nazareno
Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not CPU. I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave differently in terms of background CPU overhead or cost of common operations. Well, in any case, it really wouldn't hurt to benchmark the CPU consumption

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Erik Garrison
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:54:24PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote: On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: Carlos Nazareno wrote: Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Greg Smith
Hi Michael, No problem being blunt. I don't know yet how far behind we are or what it will take to catch up. We are close if we create a target bug list in the next two weeks then start daily triage and weekly test blitzes. Quality is my primary concern, especially if you throw in a lot of

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Greg, The choice of file system isn't a deal breaker for the Fedora Desktop feature. The hard part will be picking the right desktop (more on that soon, I already love the dancing benchmark bears :-), making it fit on the NAND, and testing it enough to prove its usable.

9.1.0 Schedule (Was Re: Fedora Desktop on XO)

2009-01-06 Thread Wade Brainerd
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Michael Stone mich...@laptop.org wrote: Greg, I don't mean to be nasty, but I do feel the need to be blunt: On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:28:36PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: Hi Michael, We are definitely behind where I would like to be at this stage. How far

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Paul, i was actually thinking in the other direction: if the ohmd action were disabled, i assume we'd get the g-p-m screen. is that screen tuneable? if g-p-m is possibly going in anyway, it might obviate the power button menu work. I'm not seeing a menu, even after killing

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Peter Robinson
Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I think there are significant differences in system resource consumption. I don't believe the decision has been made yet. I ask because the impression I had from informal tests was that a system booting into GNOME was consuming

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd requirements. Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GConf2-dbus, both ship the same .mo files) and evince (against sugar-evince,

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Peter, Good news. I'm aware of the conflicts you mention. I'm not sure that we need evince-dvi (not sure if its a requirement of anything though and hence gets pulled in automatically). That's right, we don't need it. It's part of the groupinstall, but it's not depended on

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, For the evince vs sugar-evince I suspect we need to try and get the mainline evince split out into evince and evince-libs so that we can build sugar-evince against it similar to what we do with abiword and write (I think that's its name). Yep, sounds good. When I get

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Michael Stone
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:40:07PM -0500, Reuben K. Caron wrote: Peter Robinson wrote: Hi Chris, I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Peter Robinson
Does pilgrim (Puritan?) use kickstart like files? Nope. If not, why do we not create builds using what seems to be fedora's standard build system? The short answer is that there has never been consensus among the people dealing with OLPC's builds that anaconda was the right tool for the

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread Rahul Sundaram
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

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-06 Thread John Gilmore
I'm not seeing a menu, even after killing ohmd, with When the power button is pressed: Ask me chosen in the g-p-m prefs. Dunno why yet. This works in debXO 0.4, I use it all the time. Ask dilinger how he made it work. John ___ Devel mailing

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-05 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl from the Fedora repos anyway? I've just pushed a patch to pilgrim's joyride branch to

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-03 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Peter, I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl from the Fedora repos anyway? I've just pushed a patch to pilgrim's joyride branch to

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-03 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl from the Fedora repos anyway? I've just pushed a patch to pilgrim's joyride branch to

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-02 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Greg, Sorry for delayed response, I've had little internet connectivity so have only had limited mail access and mostly through a windows box :( I'm still looking for help resolving the dependencies Chris found when he tried to install Gnome. The issue and thread are documented in the

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-02 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Greg, Sorry for delayed response, I've had little internet connectivity so have only had limited mail access and mostly through a windows box :( I'm still looking for help resolving the dependencies Chris found when he tried to install Gnome. The issue and thread are documented in the

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-02 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Peter, thanks for the reply, Is this on 8.2.0 or joyride? It looks like 8.2 due to the gnome-python version being olpc3. It's running a joyride F10 build, but looks like you're right about olpc3. Here's the /etc/yum.repos.d/olpc-development.repo shipped in Joyride:

Re: Fedora Desktop on XO

2009-01-02 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, No probs on the reply. Hi Peter, thanks for the reply, Is this on 8.2.0 or joyride? It looks like 8.2 due to the gnome-python version being olpc3. It's running a joyride F10 build, but looks like you're right about olpc3. Here's the /etc/yum.repos.d/olpc-development.repo

Fedora Desktop on XO

2008-12-30 Thread Greg Smith
Hi Peter et al, I'm still looking for help resolving the dependencies Chris found when he tried to install Gnome. The issue and thread are documented in the specifications section here: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Run_Fedora_applications_on_XO What do we do next when we get a