RE: 9.1 Proposal: Fedora integration

2008-10-18 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Scott, This is another talk I'd really rather someone else give, but I can give a brief talk on our current status problems desires if it is helpful. OLPC has forks of a number of Fedora packages, for a number of reasons. We've been trying to keep better track of the what why, at

Re: 9.1 Proposal: Printing support

2008-10-20 Thread Peter Robinson
This worked (discovery) at one point (I tried it very early in OLPC days). But printer discovery is better done by some other mechanism than that defined in IPP anyway, which is stupid broadcast. Even MDNS is less evil (e.g. avahi). Some work is probably needed for scaling of printer

Re: 9.1 Proposal: Printing support

2008-10-22 Thread Peter Robinson
can's mdns/avahi help with discovery? it'd be a shame to have to manually configure a server address or name. DNS-SD is the Right Answer (which is not exactly the same thing as mdns). But getting a standard one school server, and a classroom of XOs solution in place for 9.1 using a

Re: Status of Joyride

2008-10-31 Thread Peter Robinson
is there a plan to start up joyride again so we can (somewhat more easily) test this stuff out? Or is that waiting till after XOcamp2? Did I maybe miss the email thread about this? Joyride's back now. joyride-2520 contains the queued-up userspace changes, and joyride-2521 is the

Re: os 8.2 on SD for boot?

2008-11-02 Thread Peter Robinson
I would like to put the current 8.2 release onto an SD card for booting (with a developer's key) to allow me to better support my family and friends XOs. Right now, any customizations such as printer support or additional applications get wiped whenever there is an os update. The

Re: New joyride build 2544

2008-11-13 Thread Peter Robinson
-sugar 0.82.9-1.fc10 +sugar 0.83.2-1.olpc4 -sugar-artwork 0.82.3-1.fc10 +sugar-artwork 0.83.1-1.olpc4 -sugar-base 0.82.2-1.fc10 +sugar-base 0.83.1-1.olpc4 -sugar-datastore 0.8.3-2.fc10 +sugar-datastore 0.83.0-1.olpc4 -sugar-presence-service 0.82.2-1.fc10 +sugar-presence-service

Re: New joyride build 2544

2008-11-13 Thread Peter Robinson
Is there a reason the new sugar can't go upstream into F-10? It's very unstable code and contains several big regressions, as of today. F-10 being on feature freeze, I guess it won't be allowed in. For distro packaging, we should focus only on the stable release branches: 0.82.x, and once

Re: New joyride build 2544

2008-11-13 Thread Peter Robinson
Is there a reason the new sugar can't go upstream into F-10? It's very unstable code and contains several big regressions, as of today. F-10 being on feature freeze, I guess it won't be allowed in. For distro packaging, we should focus only on the stable release branches: 0.82.x, and once

Re: New joyride build 2544

2008-11-13 Thread Peter Robinson
For distro packaging, we should focus only on the stable release branches: 0.82.x, and once it's out next year, 0.84.x. That said, we might package 0.83.x releases in debian unstable and thus ubuntu jaunty with a view to landing 0.84 without a large delta when it does release, because that

Re: New joyride build 2544

2008-11-14 Thread Peter Robinson
That said, we might package 0.83.x releases in debian unstable and thus ubuntu jaunty with a view to landing 0.84 without a large delta when it does release, because that might be after the ubuntu feature freeze. Cool, so sounds like something that will eventually be good to get into

Re: New joyride build 2544

2008-11-14 Thread Peter Robinson
Not sure but I'll add it to my list. The other thought that had come to mind. Is there a plan for this release to move from gnome-vfs to gio/gvfs (does OLPC even use it?). It feel off the radar but it's a good idea. Should be easy because we don't use gnome-vfs that much. A ticket on

F-10 joyride vs 8.2 - getting fixes upstream.

2008-11-17 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, I've started looking through the various packages that have been pulled into joyride as part of the upgrade to Fedora-10 and reviewing packages to see what differs from upstream, 8.2 and various other olpcX packages. I'm aware of a number of packages that have been pulled in due to

Re: F-10 joyride vs 8.2 - getting fixes upstream.

2008-11-17 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, Adding a fixed build koji details for olpc-utils and adding fedora-olpc list to the mail. (oh and fixed some copy/paste bits! :) Cheers, Peter I've started looking through the various packages that have been pulled into joyride as part of the upgrade to Fedora-10 and reviewing

Re: F-10 joyride vs 8.2 - getting fixes upstream.

2008-11-18 Thread Peter Robinson
also notice that the Size delta on the 8.2 vs joyride build is reporting 0meg difference which is clearly rubbish :-) Can someone fix it for me please. The URL I'm referring to is http://dev.laptop.org/~rwh/announcer/joyride_vs_8.2.html This one works:

Re: F-10 joyride vs 8.2 - getting fixes upstream.

2008-11-18 Thread Peter Robinson
I've started looking through the various packages that have been pulled into joyride as part of the upgrade to Fedora-10 and reviewing packages to see what differs from upstream, 8.2 and various other olpcX packages. I'm aware of a number of packages that have been pulled in due to

Re: F-10 joyride vs 8.2 - getting fixes upstream.

2008-11-18 Thread Peter Robinson
Inlined below but the problem we have at the moment with things pretty locked down in preparation for Fedora-10 final the changes and fixes we get in are being held in the updates queue (like the ones I fixed yesterday). Don't let this slow you down. Tag your packages as dist-olpc4. I just

Re: F-10 joyride vs 8.2 - getting fixes upstream.

2008-11-18 Thread Peter Robinson
Inlined below but the problem we have at the moment with things pretty locked down in preparation for Fedora-10 final the changes and fixes we get in are being held in the updates queue (like the ones I fixed yesterday). Don't let this slow you down. Tag your packages as dist-olpc4. I just

joyride build fixes cont

2008-11-19 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, Looking further at the issues with joyride in particular the following 3 packages: ntpdate olpcsound olpc-logos Looking at the output of the pilgrim build logs [1] I see the following errors: Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments No package olpc-logos

Re: joyride build fixes cont

2008-11-19 Thread Peter Robinson
please untag it. it will be picked up through regular inheritance. by having it tagged any fedora updates will not get picked up automatically. Hmm, then perhaps I should undo what I did yesterday (tagged 3 packages in the f10-updates queue for quicker joyride inclusion). Those would

Re: joyride build fixes cont

2008-11-19 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, Looking further at the issues with joyride in particular the following 3 packages: ntpdate olpcsound olpc-logos Looking at the output of the pilgrim build logs [1] I see the following errors: Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments No package

libertas firmware version query

2008-11-19 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, Quick query on the libertas-usb8388-firmware package. Is the firmware version dependent on the kernel version or anything else? The reason I ask is that the version in joyride is 2:5.110.22.p18-1.olpc2 from the old olpc2 branch and the one in Fedora mainline is 2:5.110.22.p14-1.fc10. So

Re: libertas firmware version query

2008-11-20 Thread Peter Robinson
. The current recommended firmware release is 22.p18. Cheers! Ricardo Carrano On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, Quick query on the libertas-usb8388-firmware package. Is the firmware version dependent on the kernel version or anything else? The reason

Re: libertas firmware version query

2008-11-20 Thread Peter Robinson
So is there a reason p20 isn't in use? Or is there no requirement for the features/fixes it has? p20 does not fix bugs and its new features are currently under test and development (on the driver side). So, the recommended version is still p18. Cool, sounds like it might be a test case for

Re: Emulating 8.2-767

2008-12-03 Thread Peter Robinson
And maybe remove some of the obstacles in future releases (a disk image with headroom and a standard kernel would be simple to do and go a long way). Nice work. Well once qemu 0.9.2 is out the '-cpu athlon' emulation option should allow a standard joyride or 8.2 image to run easily on most

Re: wiki.laptop.org upgrade

2008-12-04 Thread Peter Robinson
I don't understand that comment. What several efforts are you talking about? I don't think there were several efforts to publicize this outage - if so, the scope of those efforts wasn't sufficient IMHO. Wouldn't a central location like an outages or maintenance mailing list for all those

Re: Fedora 10 on XO

2008-12-04 Thread Peter Robinson
* 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

Re: Fedora 10 on XO

2008-12-05 Thread Peter Robinson
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

Re: Fedora 10 on XO

2008-12-05 Thread Peter Robinson
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

Re: New joyride build 2578

2008-12-06 Thread Peter Robinson
http://xs-dev.laptop.org/~cscott/olpc/streams/joyride/build2578 Changes in build 2578 from build: 2577 Size delta: 0.00M -pygobject2 2.15.4-3.fc10 +pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.1 --- Changes for pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.1 from 2.15.4-3.fc10 --- + Experimental; fix PySignal_SetWakeupFd()

Re: New joyride build 2578

2008-12-06 Thread Peter Robinson
-pygobject2 2.15.4-3.fc10 +pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.1 --- Changes for pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.1 from 2.15.4-3.fc10 --- + Experimental; fix PySignal_SetWakeupFd() semantics to reduce wakeups Is there an upstream bug for this? Working downstream at http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/4680 and

Re: Joyride Build 2582

2008-12-09 Thread Peter Robinson
The logs at http://dev.laptop.org/~bert/joyride-pkgs.html say: joyride-2582 (pkgs) ! Build incomplete Error Downloading Packages: Any idea someone? According to the build logs something ran out of space. http://xs-dev.laptop.org/~cscott/xo-1/streams/joyride/latest/devel_ext3/build.log

Re: New joyride build 2587

2008-12-11 Thread Peter Robinson
Build Announcer v2 wrote: -libraw1394 2.0.0-4.fc10 +libraw1394 2.0.0-5.fc10 For all those XO's with firewire ports... (cups was also on the list. I don't know if that's deliberate or not.) Cups is being pulled in by libgnome which is due to xulrunner, but with the talk of printing it will

Re: [Telepathy] ANNOUNCE: telepathy-gabble 0.7.17

2008-12-15 Thread Peter Robinson
The I accidentally an entire call *and* MUC release. Tarball: http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/releases/telepathy-gabble/telepathy-gabble-0.7.17.tar.gz Signature: http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/releases/telepathy-gabble/telepathy-gabble-0.7.17.tar.gz.asc Git repository:

Re: [Telepathy] ANNOUNCE: telepathy-gabble 0.7.17

2008-12-15 Thread Peter Robinson
F-10 doesn't have dbus-glib 0.78, only 0.76 so I can't add this to joyride yet. Do we want an OLPC-4 branch for dbus-glib to handle this? I think we can wait that the updated package reach F-10. Collabora, is this relevant to OLPC? If not, we can hold off on packaging this for now, but if

Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO

2008-12-16 Thread Peter Robinson
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

Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)

2008-12-16 Thread Peter Robinson
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

Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)

2008-12-16 Thread Peter Robinson
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

Re: Slimmed Down Fedora 10 on XO (was Fedora 10 on XO)

2008-12-16 Thread Peter Robinson
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

Re: New joyride build 2605

2008-12-24 Thread Peter Robinson
+sugar-base 0.83.2-2.olpc4 Good to see this up-leveled -- the previous version of this package as distributed in Joyride was more than a month old. However, that still leaves several packages which appear to be more recent in 'olpc3' than in 'olpc4'. Output of 'yum check-update' : |

Re: New joyride build 2613

2008-12-30 Thread Peter Robinson
Size delta: 0.00M -cronie 1.2-4.fc10 +cronie 1.2-7.fc10 -perl 4:5.10.0-51.fc10 +perl 4:5.10.0-52.fc10 -perl-Module-Pluggable 1:3.60-51.fc10 +perl-Module-Pluggable 1:3.60-52.fc10 -perl-Pod-Escapes 1:1.04-51.fc10 +perl-Pod-Escapes 1:1.04-52.fc10 -perl-Pod-Simple 1:3.07-51.fc10

Re: Why not use swfdec-mozilla? (was Re: Installing Flash on the OLPC)

2009-01-01 Thread Peter Robinson
swfdec{,-mozilla} use gstreamer, are LGPLed, and support most of the Flash 9 features whereas gnash supports only a few of the Flash 9 features. swfdec is also the default Flash player on Fedora, and is the preferred flash player on Ubuntu. Quick clarification. We discussed making swfdec

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 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

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: Why not use swfdec-mozilla? (was Re: Installing Flash on the OLPC)

2009-01-03 Thread Peter Robinson
I'm not sure if it was considered, but as the maintainer of swfdec in Fedora I can state that swfdec is very cpu-intensive, and I have my doubts whether the performance on the XO would be comparable to gnash's, though it might be worth investigating. That has been my experience too, but I

Re: Why not use swfdec-mozilla?

2009-01-04 Thread Peter Robinson
The main problem [with gnash on OLPC] I've had so far is getting the Gstreamer Ugly plugins set (non-FOSS plugins, including the MP3 decoder) installed properly on XO 8.2.0 via Yum because the Gstreamer in 8.2.0's repository is some kind of mishmash from the older Fedora 8 version, not the

Re: Emulating 8.2-767

2009-01-05 Thread Peter Robinson
It may be feasible to do this on Fedora, but it is not yet feasible on Ubuntu. Sugar doesn't do anything interesting there because the networking is broken. (They are working on it and the problem might be solved in a test version, but it isn't feasible for someone who just wants to use

olpcupdate in Fedora Mainline

2009-01-05 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, olpcupdate doesn't seem to be in Fedora mainline, and I don't see a review request for it either. Is there a reason for this? If so could the maintainer (or someone who knows) organise that to happen? I can then review the package and help to get it into Fedora 10 and it can be crossed

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: New joyride build 2615

2009-01-06 Thread Peter Robinson
-pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.2 +pygobject2 2.15.4-3.olpc4.3 Does anyone know off the top of their head the reason for this fork from mainline Fedora? Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

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 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 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

2009-01-08 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: 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 of

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 with the XO

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 HW issue

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 HW issue

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. I don't think

OLPC vs Fedora packages

2009-01-14 Thread Peter Robinson
Just thought I'd post my understanding of where the packages are at based on the list that was created at FUDCon For reference see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC/Packages_for_F11 Also there's the OLPCDelta tracking bug in RHBZ 462625 for quick tracking of the ones I'm aware of. KOJI

Re: OLPC vs Fedora packages

2009-01-14 Thread Peter Robinson
Just thought I'd post my understanding of where the packages are at based on the list that was created at FUDCon For reference see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC/Packages_for_F11 Also there's the OLPCDelta tracking bug in RHBZ 462625 for quick tracking of the ones I'm aware of. KOJI

Re: OLPC vs Fedora packages

2009-01-15 Thread Peter Robinson
sugar-evince - Probably need to get evince split into evince-libs and evince so that sugar-evince can build against evince-libs. Not sure if there's plans to get sugar-evince upstreamed for easy maintenance Yesterday was working in upstreaming our patches. I really really hope that we can

Re: OLPC vs Fedora packages

2009-01-15 Thread Peter Robinson
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 05:15, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: - xulrunner and the OLPC patches (currently using mainline Fedora package) - Mario Simon I have seen that in trunk the native theme can

Re: OLPC vs Fedora packages

2009-01-15 Thread Peter Robinson
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: sugar-evince - Probably need to get evince split into evince-libs and evince so that sugar-evince can build against evince-libs. Not sure if there's plans to get sugar-evince upstreamed for easy maintenance Yesterday

Re: OLPC vs Fedora packages

2009-01-15 Thread Peter Robinson
- xulrunner and the OLPC patches (currently using mainline Fedora package) - Mario Simon I have seen that in trunk the native theme can be enabled and disabled in runtime, so that would be one patch less. I'm not 100% sure it got into 1.9.1, though. Do you know if there's a upstream

Re: [Telepathy] ANNOUNCE: telepathy-gabble 0.7.17

2009-01-21 Thread Peter Robinson
Tarball: http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/releases/telepathy-gabble/telepathy-gabble-0.7.17.tar.gz Signature: http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/releases/telepathy-gabble/telepathy-gabble-0.7.17.tar.gz.asc Git repository: git://git.collabora.co.uk/git/telepathy-gabble.git

Moving joyride to rawhide

2009-01-28 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, With the plans of releasing what is/was going to be 9.1.0 as based on Fedora 11 (rather than the original plans of Fedora 10) what is the plans on moving the joyride daily builds to pull in rawhide rather than Fedora 10? Is the plan for the 9.1.0 release (is it still going to be called

Joyide on Fedora 11/rawhide

2009-02-04 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, I wanted to put it to the lists and get some feedback, with the plans on basing the 9.1.0 release on Fedora 11 I think we need to have a testing stream based on rawhide so that we can start testing core OS related bits and dealing with them sooner rather than later. My thoughts are that

Re: Joyide on Fedora 11/rawhide

2009-02-04 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, I wanted to put it to the lists and get some feedback, with the plans on basing the 9.1.0 release on Fedora 11 I think we need to have a testing stream based on rawhide so that we can start testing core OS related bits and dealing with them sooner rather than later.

Re: Joyide on Fedora 11/rawhide

2009-02-04 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Greg, Thanks for poking :) After a brief discussion with Jeremy, it appears that Fedora 11 in rawhide has had many boot issues on many platforms, and they're tackling them one by one. He promises to have a look at OLPC specifically on Friday. Excellent news. In the mean time, even with

Re: Mesh support very likely to miss Sugar 0.84

2009-02-04 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, I've never used the mesh before so I'm not 100% on how it works... In Sugar 0.84, will mesh at least be disabled, from the point of view of Ohm and the kernel, so that the WiFi chip can be powered down when it's not in use for WiFi? To me, one of the most attractive points about the

Re: optimized Geode code (was Re: OLPC upgrades)

2009-02-08 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, Tiago Marques wrote: That software is still not compiled for the Geode LX, which further slows it down. As you say, everything uses CPU on the Geode. Things like decompressing can be made, probably, a lot faster just by using compiler optimizations. Has this been considered in

Google summer of Code?

2009-02-09 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, I noticed that quite a few organisations are starting to ramp up for GSOC and getting people to start thinking about proposals etc. Not sure if OLPC/Sugar are planning on participating but if so it might be worthwhile to start to get people thinking about what needs to be done etc.

Re: OLPC upgrades

2009-02-10 Thread Peter Robinson
or just run other distros (like many of us are doing) however, even those of us who run other distros (and see the differences) would like to see the Sugar 'distro' improve. The sugar distro is basically Fedora, with a few modifications for things like the security that OLPC uses. Sugar is

Re: OLPC upgrades

2009-02-10 Thread Peter Robinson
The sugar distro is basically Fedora, with a few modifications for things like the security that OLPC uses. Sugar is actually the GUI that sits on top of the distro. yes, but those modifications are significant. I know that Sugar is the name of the GUI, but there are still things that don't

Re: new mailing list for other distros?

2009-02-18 Thread Peter Robinson
I disagree. There is no clutter now, and concentrating all the XO hardware related discussions here is very valuable. Splitting by distribution would halt collaboration. I'd go further and say that things are already too fragmented. the fact that the DebXO maintainer didn't know that much

Re: Opportunity for speedup

2009-02-19 Thread Peter Robinson
I just measured the time taken by the boot animation by the simple technique of renaming /usr/bin/rhgb-client so the initscripts can't find it. how did you measure exactly? stopwatch? I'd like to recreate the tests. It sounds like you did this on a freshly flashed system? There were a

Re: OS/X11 support for XO-1 hardware?

2009-02-26 Thread Peter Robinson
I had thought this capability would be coming with the Fedora 10 move in 9.1.0.  With that release now scuttled, I'm wondering more generally, are these pieces being picked up anywhere? Well its not really scuttled, there will still be a equivalent release at around the time that 9.1.0 was

Re: [Sugar-devel] Future of Rainbow + Sugar?

2009-03-02 Thread Peter Robinson
To me, Bitfrost was just one more lofty windmill OLPC tried to tilt because it seemed like an interesting challenge.  I'm not clear why Sugar needs more protection from rogue activities than a normal desktop environment has from rogue applications. Reinventing the desktop as a constructivist

Re: 8.2.1 WPA testing

2009-03-02 Thread Peter Robinson
Agreed.  However, I believe you can claim reliable WPA2 support, as the WPA2 handshake doesn't have this timing vulnerability. Have not tested extensively, but my experience was that WPA2 was very reliable. Yes, my experience is also that WPA2 is more reliable. However, don't forget that

Removing perl from the build

2009-03-08 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, I've gone through what's been pulling in the perl dependency and narrowed down the packages that are dependant on it to the following list. There's a number of easy fix ones and two that I need to dig further on. The first four should be a matter of just blocking them out of the

Re: Removing perl from the build

2009-03-09 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, I've gone through what's been pulling in the perl dependency and narrowed down the packages that are dependant on it to the following list. There's a number of easy fix ones and two that I need to dig further on. The first four should be a matter of just blocking them out of the

Re: Removing perl from the build

2009-03-13 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, I've gone through what's been pulling in the perl dependency and narrowed down the packages that are dependant on it to the following list. There's a number of easy fix ones and two that I need to dig further on. The first four should be a matter of just blocking them out of the

Re: Removing perl from the build

2009-03-13 Thread Peter Robinson
As another follow up to this the gnome-python2-evince package (needed from sugar-read) incorrectly required evince-devel which in turn pulls in a chunk of the devel stack plus perl, I've filed RH bug 490112 to get this fixed so hopefully it should be done before too long. If you think its

Re: announce: alternate power management

2009-03-16 Thread Peter Robinson
  i'm sure rawhide will gain a power management solution of some   sort.  probably ohmd will be added.  i wouldn't be surprised if   olpc-kbdshim and olpc-powerd would work fine as well, but if   you'd like to test that to confirm it, i wouldn't object.  ;-)     Rawhide status: thanks

csound vs olpcsound

2009-03-25 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, I know that olpcsound was originally a fork of csound for olpc. I noticed just now on the sugarlabs page for the 0.84 release [1] that it depends on csound 5.08/5.10 and makes no mention of olpcsound. Does that mean that olpcsound is now obsolete and that once we get csound in Fedora

olpc kernel src rpm

2009-03-25 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi All, Does anyone have a link to the kernel src rpm that's used for what was the latest joyride kernel or the equivalent thereof? Peter ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: csound vs olpcsound

2009-03-25 Thread Peter Robinson
not like to move from olpcsound to csound 5.03, though. olpcsound is not a fork, it is based on the same sources as Csound5, with less components and dependencies. It is just a build option (for scons). Victor - Original Message - From: Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com Date

Re: csound vs olpcsound

2009-03-25 Thread Peter Robinson
.) Regards Victor - Original Message - From: Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:17 am Subject: Re: csound vs olpcsound To: victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie Cc: OLPC Developer's List devel@lists.laptop.org Hi Victor, Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I

Re: announce: alternate power management

2009-04-01 Thread Peter Robinson
This looks quite interesting. Have you looked at what Fedora is introducing with DeviceKit-power and fellows in Fedora 11. It would be interesting to see the similarities in features to help minimise duplication of effort and to piggy back off Redhat's development resources. They are using it to

Re: Announcing Fedora 11 Beta for XO

2009-04-03 Thread Peter Robinson
The Fedora F11 beta announcement is here http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg02103.html Peter On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Carol Farlow Lerche c...@msbit.com wrote: Chris, are there release notes somewhere? On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Chris Ball

Re: Announcing Fedora 11 Beta for XO

2009-04-03 Thread Peter Robinson
and if so what version? Does wifi definition work in the sugar gui?  That stuff. On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: The Fedora F11 beta announcement is here http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg02103.html Peter On Fri, Apr 3

Re: Announcing Fedora 11 Beta for XO

2009-04-03 Thread Peter Robinson
  It is as far as I'm aware plain rawhide which means it will be sugar   0.84 with default Fedora power stuff using the new devicekit [1]. All   the hardware should work as expected and if it doesn't please report   it, either here or in the Fedora Bugzilla. i don't understand.  wasn't there

Re: Announcing Fedora 11 Beta for XO

2009-04-03 Thread Peter Robinson
  i don't understand.  wasn't there just a thread yesterday or the   day before about how there are major XO-specific pieces (e.g.   suspend/resume, the dcon driver) missing from the fedora kernel?   what do you mean by hardware should work as expected?     Yes. This isn't a joyride

Re: Announcing Fedora 11 Beta for XO

2009-04-04 Thread Peter Robinson
From the Fedora perspective this is the latest beta release Is this statement meant to be equivalent to this is the latest F11 beta? Now I read it, a fairly pointless statement should have coffee _BEFORE_ replying to emails in the morning. It has all the latest Sugar stuff in it but

Re: Announcing Fedora 11 Beta for XO

2009-04-04 Thread Peter Robinson
Hi Chris, Out of interest does OFW support ext4? I've tried today to get a SD card to boot using your image with no luck, but shoved a usb key in that has the standard F11 beta on it and the kernel booted straight up but got no further. Peter On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Chris Ball

Re: Announcing Fedora 11 Beta for XO

2009-04-06 Thread Peter Robinson
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Martin Dengler mar...@martindengler.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 01:43:07PM +0100, Martin Dengler wrote: - network frame icon still blank (I think for the same reason as   http://dev.sugarlabs.org/ticket/307 ) - some WPA (1) networks unable to be

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >