Re: status of forks

2009-01-14 Thread Peter Robinson
>>> 1. forks to use different compile/packaging options to eliminate >>> dependancies >>> >>> 2. forks to change the code (adding functionality in particular) >>> >>> I'm not _that_ interested in #1, but am very interested in #2, especially >>> anything done to make things work with the XO hardware

Re: status of forks

2009-01-14 Thread Bert Freudenberg
On 14.01.2009, at 13:15, Morgan Collett wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:47, Peter Robinson > wrote: >>> I see two classes of forks >>> >>> 1. forks to use different compile/packaging options to eliminate >>> dependancies >>> >>> 2. forks to change the code (adding functionality in particul

Re: status of forks

2009-01-14 Thread Morgan Collett
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:47, Peter Robinson wrote: >> I see two classes of forks >> >> 1. forks to use different compile/packaging options to eliminate >> dependancies >> >> 2. forks to change the code (adding functionality in particular) >> >> I'm not _that_ interested in #1, but am very intere

Re: status of forks

2009-01-10 Thread Peter Robinson
>> I don't think there are any other than the kernel that are forked for >> hardware issues, and the stock Fedora i386 kernel will work with the >> XO but the likes of numerous ethernet/storage drivers, ISA, MCA, Token >> Ring and the like are of little use for the device :-) . There use to >> be a

Re: status of forks

2009-01-10 Thread Sayamindu Dasgupta
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> I see two classes of forks >> >> 1. forks to use different compile/packaging options to eliminate >> dependancies >> >> 2. forks to change the code (adding functionality in particular) >> >> I'm not _that_ interested in #1, but am very inte

Re: status of forks

2009-01-10 Thread david
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> I don't think there are any other than the kernel that are forked for >>> hardware issues, and the stock Fedora i386 kernel will work with the >>> XO but the likes of numerous ethernet/storage drivers, ISA, MCA, Token >>> Ring and the like are of litt

Re: status of forks

2009-01-10 Thread Peter Robinson
>> I don't think there are any other than the kernel that are forked for >> hardware issues, and the stock Fedora i386 kernel will work with the >> XO but the likes of numerous ethernet/storage drivers, ISA, MCA, Token >> Ring and the like are of little use for the device :-) . There use to >> be a

Re: status of forks

2009-01-10 Thread david
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Peter Robinson wrote: >> I see two classes of forks >> >> 1. forks to use different compile/packaging options to eliminate >> dependancies >> >> 2. forks to change the code (adding functionality in particular) >> >> I'm not _that_ interested in #1, but am very interested in #2

Re: status of forks

2009-01-10 Thread Peter Robinson
> I see two classes of forks > > 1. forks to use different compile/packaging options to eliminate > dependancies > > 2. forks to change the code (adding functionality in particular) > > I'm not _that_ interested in #1, but am very interested in #2, especially > anything done to make things work wit

Re: status of forks

2009-01-10 Thread david
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> There's a discussion going on right now at FUDCon with gregdek and cjb >>> running down the 20 or so forked packages and smoothing out how to >>> merge them back in. So there should be helpful updates soon. >> >> Don't forget that we have not yet for

Re: status of forks

2009-01-10 Thread Peter Robinson
>> There's a discussion going on right now at FUDCon with gregdek and cjb >> running down the 20 or so forked packages and smoothing out how to >> merge them back in. So there should be helpful updates soon. > > Don't forget that we have not yet forked F10 to the extent that we did > F9 to get rid

Re: status of forks

2009-01-09 Thread Daniel Drake
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > There's a discussion going on right now at FUDCon with gregdek and cjb > running down the 20 or so forked packages and smoothing out how to > merge them back in. So there should be helpful updates soon. Don't forget that we have not yet fork

Re: status of forks

2009-01-09 Thread Samuel Klein
There's a discussion going on right now at FUDCon with gregdek and cjb running down the 20 or so forked packages and smoothing out how to merge them back in. So there should be helpful updates soon. SJ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http:

Re: status of forks

2009-01-09 Thread S Page
Peter Robinson wrote: >> with the layoffs happening would it make sense to get a document listing >> what patches/forks are being maintained by OLPC. The best page is probably http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Distro_version_migration_nastiness any other pages should be in [[Category:Build system]] and m

Re: status of forks

2009-01-08 Thread Peter Robinson
> with the layoffs happening would it make sense to get a document listing > what patches/forks are being maintained by OLPC. > > the information on what the patches are can probably be extracted from > various places, but commentary on why they are there may be lost as people > move on to other jo

status of forks

2009-01-08 Thread david
with the layoffs happening would it make sense to get a document listing what patches/forks are being maintained by OLPC. the information on what the patches are can probably be extracted from various places, but commentary on why they are there may be lost as people move on to other jobs. Dav