You can't include a rpm in the xo. Can include the binaries, but will do
more difficult do your activity run in multiple architectures.
XulRunner is deprecated, and can be easily replaced by webkit.
Replace apache/php with a python web server will be more work, but is
doable.
Gonzalo
On Mon
You can include an RPM in the .xo file, but you won't be able to use
the rpm command to install the RPM onto the system; the .xo format
cannot reliably be used to gain root access. Many systems are run
without access to root by user.
You would have to write activity code that would read the RPM
Hello,
I have an RPM package that includes a set of services and application that
I need to make available for a users of the OLPC to download and install.
It is basically a web application that uses XULRunner for the front end,
and xamp (apache/php/mysql) for back end, all inside and rpm.
This
From Jon Nettleton's notes on the xorg track, it is clear that we need
Linux 3.0 as it includes CMA support (at least enough bits of it that
Jon can get his job done).
So cjb tackled an initial rebase of our patches to the 3.0, skipping
the RPM spec/build bits. Now I've reviewed his rebase --
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Martin Langhoff mar...@laptop.org wrote:
From Jon Nettleton's notes on the xorg track, it is clear that we need
Linux 3.0 as it includes CMA support (at least enough bits of it that
Jon can get his job done).
So cjb tackled an initial rebase of our patches
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
I know in Fedora 16 there were a number of tools that didn't play well with
the 3.0 (likely not a complete problem as I think the final release was in
Yep - so that's one of many reasons to switch early, rather than
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:07:13 +0100
Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
I know in Fedora 16 there were a number of tools that didn't play well with
the 3.0 (likely not a complete problem as I think the final release was in
fact 3.0.0) and the 2.6 numbering schemes.
Seemingly there
Just a quick summary of a discussion and a decision that we reached on
IRC, which will hold at least for now with our XO-1.5 software builds.
Further input is welcome, although this is at risk of starting another
huge discussion...
Question: In the early XO-1.5 OS builds right now, we have a
- rpm-based packages cannot be updated with Sugar's updater utility,
which is the primary way for updating activities right now. There is no
upgrade path for activities installed by rpms (without updating the
whole OS, which is another open question)
You can update only one activity with:
#
Can you expand on this idea? My main complaint with what I've seen from
previous non-OLPC mechanisms is that root/super-user privileges are
required. We can wrap any old CLI in a shiny, pretty, GUI. But it needs to
work in a sane, safe way without passwords for small human beings.
If I'm not
Daniel Drake wrote:
- There is certainly room for improvement in future, but finding
development time in the short term may be a bit tricky... or perhaps we
will be able to raise community interest in making or implementing a
plan for improvement... :)
Daniel
Have you looked at how ruby
Just a quick summary of a discussion and a decision that we reached on
IRC, which will hold at least for now with our XO-1.5 software builds.
Further input is welcome, although this is at risk of starting another
huge discussion...
Question: In the early XO-1.5 OS builds right now, we have a mix
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:52 +0200, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
- rpm-based packages cannot be updated with Sugar's updater utility,
which is the primary way for updating activities right now. There is no
upgrade path for activities installed by rpms (without updating the
whole OS,
Hi Daniel,
On 23 Jun 2009, at 21:13, Daniel Drake wrote:
I proposed the following some times ago [1], but no one responded. I
would have loved for someone actually knowledgeable (i.e. not some
random guy like me throwing out ideas he can't even implement) to
explain how this would be a
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Daniel Drake wrote:
Just a quick summary of a discussion and a decision that we reached on
IRC, which will hold at least for now with our XO-1.5 software builds.
Further input is welcome, although this is at risk of starting another
huge discussion...
Question: In the
15 matches
Mail list logo
