On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org 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
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 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
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 Fri, 4/16/10, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote:
From: Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org
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
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
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org 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
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, 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 fact
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 benefit.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org 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
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org 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
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 where I
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
