On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> And there is a perfect reason for a stable distro such as RHEL or CentOS :-)
:-)
Two quick things I want to inject into this conversation.
- Timing affects this decision. We're not in the abstract -- this is
_now_. If RHEL6/CentOS6 is re
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 23:31 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > I'm not against packaging Sugar for RHEL. I just think it would cost
>> > more to support after the first year or two.
>>
>> Agreed. And in fact I said that exactly
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 23:31 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
[...]
> > I'm not against packaging Sugar for RHEL. I just think it would cost
> > more to support after the first year or two.
>
> Agreed. And in fact I said that exactly and hence my reference to the
> 18 month to 2.5 year point but the
> Ha! Upgrading Firefox to version 3.5 would break the xulrunner ABI, on
> which we depend for hulahop (and hence Browse).
I had zero problems running Firefox 3.5 from the Terminal activity on my
XOs. I am currently running Firefox 3.6.3 - again, zero problems -
including being able to launch it
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 07:59 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> > I agree on this, but it misses the point :-)
>>
>> Not exactly.
>
> That was just supposed to continue your point-point-point pun :)
>
>
>> > * GSM connectivity requires up-to-
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 14:00 -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> But at least you have 2 years. With F11 you have 0.
I agree. Today we should be releasing a system based on F13, which would
come with 12 months of "official" support and maybe 8-10 months of
*real* attention of the upstream develo
--- On Fri, 4/16/10, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> From: Bernie Innocenti
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Long-term development strategy (Was: New XO-1.5 10.2.0
> build 119)
>
> I'm not against packaging Sugar for RHEL. I just think it
> would cost
> more to support after the
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 07:59 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > I agree on this, but it misses the point :-)
>
> Not exactly.
That was just supposed to continue your point-point-point pun :)
> > * GSM connectivity requires up-to-date versions of udev and
> > modem-manager to support USB dongles
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:27 AM, James Cameron wrote:
> http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9350 (xrandr screen rotation support) is
> still being worked. We did try with software frame buffer rotation
> enabled, but it did not perform well.
>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
>
Chris,
http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9350 (xrandr screen rotation support) is
still being worked. We did try with software frame buffer rotation
enabled, but it did not perform well.
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@list
Hi,
> I updated my XO-1.5s to 119 yesterday and was surprised to see
> that the screen rotation button still doesn't seem to
> work. Looking through the mailing-lists I didn't find any
> discussion about this topic which kinda surprised me.
The openchrome driver hasn't previously had
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5
> http://build.laptop.org/10.2.0/os119
>
> Compressed image size: 678.36mb (+0.01mb since build 118)
>
> Description of changes in this build:
> * kernel: allow negotiation of 5/10/15/30fps (#10106)
>
> W
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 19:13, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> That's because of the exim. Do a 'yum install ssmtp' then a 'yum
>> remove exim' and most of that problem goes away. the auto depsolving
>> for '/usr/bin/sendmail' get exim by default because i
On 12 April 2010 19:13, Peter Robinson wrote:
> That's because of the exim. Do a 'yum install ssmtp' then a 'yum
> remove exim' and most of that problem goes away. the auto depsolving
> for '/usr/bin/sendmail' get exim by default because its the shortest
> name and comes first. exim depends on per
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 23:54 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Bernie, I'm not sure the point of this point at this point in time. To
>> copy and paste part of the response I did to the other thread on
>> fedora-olpc for others benefit.
>>
>>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:31:25PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 23:54 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > Bernie, I'm not sure the point of this point at this point in time. To
> > copy and paste part of the response I did to the other thread on
> > fedora-olpc for others ben
IMHO I not only agree 120%, but also OLE Bolivia has budgeted support
for upstreaming development.
The idea being, if we are going to benefit, as an
institution/country/project from work done professionally, if we are
going to depend on it and expect it keeps up with improvements, then we
have
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 23:54 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Bernie, I'm not sure the point of this point at this point in time. To
> copy and paste part of the response I did to the other thread on
> fedora-olpc for others benefit.
>
> I personally don't see the point discussing it because from whe
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 06:12:46PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> In the past, Sugar and OLPC development was much hurt by its
> disconnection from the rest of the free software ecosystem on which it
> was built. We need to get much closer to our upstream projects, both in
> time (by using curren
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 13:29 -0700, Jon Nettleton wrote:
>
>> Has there been any discussion on whether CentOS was an option as a
>> base for the distro? With RHEL/CentOS 6 hopefully within sight, that
>> would give a nice target to provid
Hi,
> There's not much point discussing it at the moment as RHEL-6
> isn't out yet
This is my feeling too -- I agree that RHEL and CentOS 6 will be a
more attractive base than any of their previous releases have been,
and we'll want to consider them then. Not much more to say until we
know
>> Believe me I'll be one of the first poeple adding the sugar packages
>> to EL-6 branches and testing them but its not necessarily the golden
>> path that some people think. In the short term of the first 12 months
>> it will be fine, 18 months to 2.5 years it won't seem as good.
>
> I am not see
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 15:10, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I don't have the XO near me to test but 'yum remove perl' will give
>> you the answer.
>
> On XO-1.5 running something very close to 10.2.0 build 119, it wants
> to remove many components incl
On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 13:29 -0700, Jon Nettleton wrote:
> Has there been any discussion on whether CentOS was an option as a
> base for the distro? With RHEL/CentOS 6 hopefully within sight, that
> would give a nice target to provide both the combination of stability
> and long term support.
Thi
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>>> It will then be OK for a while until Sugar needs a newer version of a
>>> library
>>
>> I think there is an "elephant in the living room" to which too little
>> attention is being
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 15:10, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I don't have the XO near me to test but 'yum remove perl' will give
>> you the answer.
>
> On XO-1.5 running something very close to 10.2.0 build 119, it wants
> to remove many components inclu
On 12 April 2010 15:10, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I don't have the XO near me to test but 'yum remove perl' will give
> you the answer.
On XO-1.5 running something very close to 10.2.0 build 119, it wants
to remove many components including anacron, yum, rpm,
ds-backup-client, olpc-update, ...
Is
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>> It will then be OK for a while until Sugar needs a newer version of a
>> library
>
> I think there is an "elephant in the living room" to which too little
> attention is being paid. Consider Peru - they have a lot of XO-1
> systems, on w
> It will then be OK for a while until Sugar needs a newer version of a
> library
I think there is an "elephant in the living room" to which too little
attention is being paid. Consider Peru - they have a lot of XO-1
systems, on which it is unlikely that the newest version of Sugar will
ever be i
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> In the longer term its likely that it will be. The libraries in CentOS
> 5 are too old. The problem is that RHEL-6 isn't out yet, nor is there
At least this XS guy is hopefuly that RHEL-6 will appear soon and XS
0.7 or 0.8 will be based on
--- On Mon, 4/12/10, Peter Robinson wrote:
> From: Peter Robinson
> Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis"
> Cc: "Bernie Innocenti" , "Devel"
> , "Fedora OLPC"
> Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 3:56 PM
> > Gentlemen - on some of my XO-1s I've installed perl onto my
> > "permanent" SD card, rather than having it occupy jffs2. By
> > doing so, I've saved about 33 MB of space in jffs2.
> >
> > Is that a large enough savings (given a 4000 MB XO-1.5) to be
> > worth spending this much discussion on
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
wrote:
>
>
> --- On Mon, 4/12/10, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>
>> From: Bernie Innocenti
>> Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
>> To: "Peter Robinson"
>> Cc: "Devel" , "Fed
Hi,
> Gentlemen - on some of my XO-1s I've installed perl onto my
> "permanent" SD card, rather than having it occupy jffs2. By
> doing so, I've saved about 33 MB of space in jffs2.
>
> Is that a large enough savings (given a 4000 MB XO-1.5) to be
> worth spending this much dis
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>> 'yum remove perl' will give you the answer.
>
> Gentlemen - on some of my XO-1s I've installed perl onto my "permanent"
> SD card, rather than having it occupy jffs2. By doing so, I've saved
> about 33 MB of space in jffs2.
>
> Is that a
> 'yum remove perl' will give you the answer.
Gentlemen - on some of my XO-1s I've installed perl onto my "permanent"
SD card, rather than having it occupy jffs2. By doing so, I've saved
about 33 MB of space in jffs2.
Is that a large enough savings (given a 4000 MB XO-1.5) to be worth
spending t
--- On Mon, 4/12/10, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> From: Bernie Innocenti
> Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
> To: "Peter Robinson"
> Cc: "Devel" , "Fedora OLPC"
>
> Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 9:15 AM
> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 17:
On 04/12/2010 02:51 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> find /sys -name '*cputemp*'
/sys/devices/platform/via_cputemp.0
Awesome! I'll change my scripts and remove that dependency.
Thanks.
--
Richard A. Smith
One Laptop per Child
___
Devel mailing list
Deve
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> On 12 April 2010 14:51, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> I've got some more time and have finally had a chance to look at these
>>> further. From an initial looks it looks like your getting
On 12 April 2010 15:45, Richard A. Smith wrote:
> Except for where I specified extra stuff I needed. :) like lm_sensors
> which requires perl.
>
> So I need to find a way to read the CPU temp without lm_sensors or we
> somehow need to break lm_sensors use of perl.
It's really easy to read from sy
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Richard A. Smith wrote:
> On 04/12/2010 02:34 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>>> perl? I created them on the XO so anything that I used should have
>>> already been installed.
>
> Except for where I specified extra stuff I needed. :) like lm_sensors which
> requires
On 04/12/2010 02:34 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> perl? I created them on the XO so anything that I used should have
>> already been installed.
Except for where I specified extra stuff I needed. :) like lm_sensors
which requires perl.
So I need to find a way to read the CPU temp without lm_sens
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Richard A. Smith wrote:
> On 04/12/2010 02:10 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Which burnin package are you referring to? olpc-runin-tests-0.9.15-1.noarch?
>>
>> I don't have the XO near me to test but 'yum remove perl' will give
>> you the answer.
>
> The runin
smith wrote:
> On 04/12/2010 02:10 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Which burnin package are you referring to?
> >> olpc-runin-tests-0.9.15-1.noarch?
> >
> > I don't have the XO near me to test but 'yum remove perl' will give
> > you the answer.
>
> The runin scripts are all bash.
On 04/12/2010 02:10 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> Which burnin package are you referring to? olpc-runin-tests-0.9.15-1.noarch?
>
> I don't have the XO near me to test but 'yum remove perl' will give
> you the answer.
The runin scripts are all bash. Not sure why perl would be a
dependency. Pe
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 14:51, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I've got some more time and have finally had a chance to look at these
>> further. From an initial looks it looks like your getting exim due to
>> the cronie deps on /usr/bin/sendmail. If you a
On 12 April 2010 14:51, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I've got some more time and have finally had a chance to look at these
> further. From an initial looks it looks like your getting exim due to
> the cronie deps on /usr/bin/sendmail. If you add an explicit 'ssmtp'
> into the .ks that will provide tha
Hey Chris,
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5
> http://build.laptop.org/10.2.0/os119
>
> Compressed image size: 678.36mb (+0.01mb since build 118)
>
> Description of changes in this build:
> * kernel: allow negotiation of 5/10/15/30fps (#101
On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 17:57 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> Finally, I guess you have thought of it, but by the
> >> time 10.2 will be out F11 repositories will be down
> >> and thus the builds totally frozen software-wise.
> >
> > I think it would have been better to rebase on F12 6 months ago.
ll
> Subject: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
> To: "Fedora OLPC"
> Cc: "Devel"
> Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 4:27 PM
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5
> http://build.laptop.org/10.2.0/os119
>
> Compressed image size: 678.36mb (+0.01mb since build 11
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
wrote:
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/10/10, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>
>> From: Bernie Innocenti
>> Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
>> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis"
>> Cc: "Fedora OLPC"
Hi,
> Do you know of any place that has the Fedora 9 rpms? People are
> looking for them to add new apps functions and hacks on
> Sugar-0.82 machines but there are nowhere to be found. If F9
> repos were still available, F11 builds might not even be needed
> for the XO-1.
I just
--- On Sat, 4/10/10, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> From: Bernie Innocenti
> Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis"
> Cc: "Fedora OLPC" , "Chris Ball"
> , "Devel"
> Date: Saturday, April 10, 20
>> Finally, I guess you have thought of it, but by the
>> time 10.2 will be out F11 repositories will be down
>> and thus the builds totally frozen software-wise.
>
> I think it would have been better to rebase on F12 6 months ago.
> Now it's way too close to the release date :-(
I recommended F-1
--- On Sat, 4/10/10, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> From: Bernie Innocenti
> Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis"
> Cc: "Fedora OLPC" , "Chris Ball"
> , "Devel"
> Date: Saturday, April 10, 20
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Sascha Silbe
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 07:12:18AM -0700, Jon Nettleton wrote:
>
>> This bug has been located and will be fixed in the next rpm of
>> openchrome. I will post a link to an updated rpm also.
>
> BTW, is there a chance to get your updated versio
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 07:12:18AM -0700, Jon Nettleton wrote:
This bug has been located and will be fixed in the next rpm of
openchrome. I will post a link to an updated rpm also.
BTW, is there a chance to get your updated versions of openChrome on a
Debian system somehow? Some git repo I cou
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
wrote:
> Unfortunately Record.activity is not really working yet. Filed #1931 with
> sugarlabs.
> Also GIMP is freezing the XO-1.5 as soon as you open an image. Both in Gnome
> and launched from Sugar. Hard reboot is the only way out.
This
On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 01:47 -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> Unfortunately Record.activity is not really working yet. Filed #1931 with
> sugarlabs.
Is this on the XO-1.5, or also on the XO-1? I tested Record v65
yesterday on os129py and it was perfect.
> ntpdate is missing from the builds.
till
migration to F>11, so at least if a component is needed can be found at that
time?
--- On Fri, 4/9/10, Chris Ball wrote:
> From: Chris Ball
> Subject: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
> To: "Fedora OLPC"
> Cc: "Devel"
> Date: Friday, April 9, 201
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5
http://build.laptop.org/10.2.0/os119
Compressed image size: 678.36mb (+0.01mb since build 118)
Description of changes in this build:
* kernel: allow negotiation of 5/10/15/30fps (#10106)
With this change, Record should be able to record audio+video togethe
61 matches
Mail list logo
