From wadetb at gmail.com Sat Jan 2 00:33:04 2010 From: wadetb at gmail.com (Wade Brainerd) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:33:04 -0500 Subject: [Sugar-devel] Fedora Sugar Meeting Minutes 31/12/2009 In-Reply-To: <4B3CD1A4.60808@when.com> References: <4B3CD1A4.60808@when.com> Message-ID: <7087c32a1001011633l28772c56j203ee3f87371adc7@mail.gmail.com> Hi Sebastian, I'm concerned that you guys are planning to require activity authors to package their activities in Fedora, in order to see them shipped in SoaS. Is this the case? Currently SoaS pulls a predefined list of activities from ASLO. I think requiring Fedora packaging would be too much extra work activity authors. If you look at the packaged versions on download.sugarlabs.org, many are out of date from their ASLO equivalents. Also, will you still allow packages from rpmfusion? These are currently required to make VirtualBox Guest Additions work. Best, Wade On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Sebastian Dziallas wrote: > This is it. First meeting after some time, quite some folks joined. > > Thanks to all those who dropped by! Here are the minutes and logs: > > http://meeting.olpcorps.net/fedora-olpc/fedora-olpc.minutes.20091231_1013.html > > http://meeting.olpcorps.net/fedora-olpc/fedora-olpc.log.20091231_1013.html > > Next date is the Sugar Packaging Session on Jan 6, 1500 UTC [1] - if > you're interested in learning how to package, join us! > > --Sebastian > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Classroom#Upcoming_Classes > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > From sebastian at when.com Sun Jan 3 19:07:40 2010 From: sebastian at when.com (Sebastian Dziallas) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:07:40 +0100 Subject: [Sugar-devel] Fedora Sugar Meeting Minutes 31/12/2009 In-Reply-To: <7087c32a1001011633l28772c56j203ee3f87371adc7@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B3CD1A4.60808@when.com> <7087c32a1001011633l28772c56j203ee3f87371adc7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B40EAFC.5040409@when.com> Hi Wade, thanks a lot for sharing your concerns that openly! I've dropped a few comments inline... Wade Brainerd wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > I'm concerned that you guys are planning to require activity authors > to package their activities in Fedora, in order to see them shipped in > SoaS. Is this the case? We're not going to require anybody doing anything - and certainly not in the current state. Creating RPMs from activities is at the moment still too complicated - which is why we're working at making it easier. As you say below yourself, even tarballs don't get created by some authors. So it wouldn't even be possible to ask people to install Fedora, read lots of documents, create random .spec files and run spurious commands (exaggeration intended). So. That's also why we're doing this as a Fedora / Sugar effort and we're sending this to fedora-olpc and sugar-devel: People from Fedora could get easily into contributing to Sugar by helping out with packaging and probably doing more things on their favorite activity. And Sugar folks might be interested in doing some distro work, too. > Currently SoaS pulls a predefined list of activities from ASLO. This is true. > I think requiring Fedora packaging would be too much extra work > activity authors. If you look at the packaged versions on > download.sugarlabs.org, many are out of date from their ASLO > equivalents. That's true, too. But it means that even just running one additional command doesn't get done by some authors. > Also, will you still allow packages from rpmfusion? These are > currently required to make VirtualBox Guest Additions work. I don't think this should be a blocker for us. From what I know, the VirtualBox Guest Additions are not in Fedora because they ship a kernel module and Fedora doesn't permit the inclusion of kernel modules. Anyway, what I'm basically saying is just that moving work we're doing anyway (as SoaS, a distributor) upstream is a good thing. > Best, > Wade Cheers, --Sebastian > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Sebastian Dziallas wrote: >> This is it. First meeting after some time, quite some folks joined. >> >> Thanks to all those who dropped by! Here are the minutes and logs: >> >> http://meeting.olpcorps.net/fedora-olpc/fedora-olpc.minutes.20091231_1013.html >> >> http://meeting.olpcorps.net/fedora-olpc/fedora-olpc.log.20091231_1013.html >> >> Next date is the Sugar Packaging Session on Jan 6, 1500 UTC [1] - if >> you're interested in learning how to package, join us! >> >> --Sebastian >> >> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Classroom#Upcoming_Classes >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel From wad at laptop.org Mon Jan 4 18:44:10 2010 From: wad at laptop.org (John Watlington) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:44:10 -0500 Subject: .gvfs Message-ID: <6BB9AB3A-60E8-485B-926A-44B8F57F65EF@laptop.org> What is this "file" in /home/olpc that refuses to be listed ? It seems to be associated with the "Gnome Virtual File System". Is it necessary ? Cheers, wad From pbrobinson at gmail.com Mon Jan 4 20:01:07 2010 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:01:07 +0000 Subject: .gvfs In-Reply-To: <6BB9AB3A-60E8-485B-926A-44B8F57F65EF@laptop.org> References: <6BB9AB3A-60E8-485B-926A-44B8F57F65EF@laptop.org> Message-ID: <5256d0b1001041201u17ac2111s1752c0f0af95644@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:44 PM, John Watlington wrote: > > What is this "file" in /home/olpc that refuses to be listed ? > > It seems to be associated with the "Gnome Virtual File System". > > Is it necessary ? Its a sort of mount point for gvfs filesystems (gvfs replaces gnome-vfs) and it should go away if you remove gvfs support but then any gnome apps wouldn't work for things like network shares and the like. So I don't suppose its necessary but then what is it hurting? Peter From cjb at laptop.org Mon Jan 4 20:52:48 2010 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:52:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 103 Message-ID: <20100104205248.EC118FA925@dev.laptop.org> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5 http://build.laptop.org/10.2.0/os103 Compressed image size: 702.05mb (-0.10mb since build 102) Description of changes in this build: * Camera driver rework from Jon Corbet * Fix stop button/terminal size again (#9823) * olpc-update regenerated ssh host keys (#9901) * limit tmpfs (/tmp and /var/tmp) size (#9636) * explain that a restart is required after olpc-update (#9791) Package changes since build 102: -bitfrost-1.0.4-1.fc11.i586 +bitfrost-1.0.5-1.fc11.i586 -curl-7.19.7-3.fc11.i586 +curl-7.19.7-4.fc11.i586 -gnash-0.8.5-3.fc11.i586 +gnash-0.8.6-9.fc11.i586 -gnash-plugin-0.8.5-3.fc11.i586 +gnash-plugin-0.8.6-9.fc11.i586 -kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20091228.0910.1.olpc.2029a80.i586 +kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100104.1240.1.olpc.1774bf2.i586 -kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20091228.0910.1.olpc.2029a80.i586 +kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100104.1240.1.olpc.1774bf2.i586 -libcurl-7.19.7-3.fc11.i586 +libcurl-7.19.7-4.fc11.i586 -olpc-utils-1.0.15-1.fc11.i586 +olpc-utils-1.0.16-1.fc11.i586 +sugar-0.84.10-1.fc11.i586 -sugar-0.84.9-1.fc11.1.i586 -sugar-toolkit-0.84.7-1.fc11.i586 +sugar-toolkit-0.84.8-1.fc11.i586 From wad at laptop.org Tue Jan 5 01:11:50 2010 From: wad at laptop.org (John Watlington) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:11:50 -0500 Subject: .gvfs In-Reply-To: <5256d0b1001041201u17ac2111s1752c0f0af95644@mail.gmail.com> References: <6BB9AB3A-60E8-485B-926A-44B8F57F65EF@laptop.org> <5256d0b1001041201u17ac2111s1752c0f0af95644@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: When the gfvs is actually mounted (which it seems to be even when Sugar is running, not Gnome), ls and du give errors when run on the home directory (even as root). It would be nice if standard UNIX utilities didn't barf on Gnome's extensions. wad On Jan 4, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:44 PM, John Watlington > wrote: >> >> What is this "file" in /home/olpc that refuses to be listed ? >> >> It seems to be associated with the "Gnome Virtual File System". >> >> Is it necessary ? > > Its a sort of mount point for gvfs filesystems (gvfs replaces > gnome-vfs) and it should go away if you remove gvfs support but then > any gnome apps wouldn't work for things like network shares and the > like. So I don't suppose its necessary but then what is it hurting? > > Peter From bochecha at fedoraproject.org Tue Jan 5 07:10:15 2010 From: bochecha at fedoraproject.org (Mathieu Bridon) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:10:15 +0100 Subject: .gvfs In-Reply-To: References: <6BB9AB3A-60E8-485B-926A-44B8F57F65EF@laptop.org> <5256d0b1001041201u17ac2111s1752c0f0af95644@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d319b781001042310g5dbe190aj5f341bc90a6da180@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 02:11, John Watlington wrote: > > When the gfvs is actually mounted (which it seems to be even when > Sugar is running, not Gnome), ls and du give errors when run on the > home directory (even as root). > > It would be nice if standard UNIX utilities didn't barf on Gnome's > extensions. And it's the case (as my user) : $ ll .gvfs/ total 4 drwx------. 1 mathieu mathieu 4096 2009-10-29 22:38 sftp for bochecha on fedorapeople.org Of course, as root : # ll /home/mathieu/.gvfs ls: cannot access /home/mathieu/.gvfs: Permission denied This is expected. See this thread : https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+question/34333#5 Towards the end, someone called Fred explains it pretty well. ---------- Mathieu Bridon From pgf at laptop.org Tue Jan 5 13:49:52 2010 From: pgf at laptop.org (Paul Fox) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:49:52 -0500 Subject: .gvfs In-Reply-To: <2d319b781001042310g5dbe190aj5f341bc90a6da180@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20100105_021135_008999_F1C19126) References: <6BB9AB3A-60E8-485B-926A-44B8F57F65EF@laptop.org> <5256d0b1001041201u17ac2111s1752c0f0af95644@mail.gmail.com> <2d319b781001042310g5dbe190aj5f341bc90a6da180@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20100105_021135_008999_F1C19126) Message-ID: <27602.1262699392@foxharp.boston.ma.us> mathieu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 02:11, John Watlington wrote: > > > > When the gfvs is actually mounted (which it seems to be even when > > Sugar is running, not Gnome), ls and du give errors when run on the > > home directory (even as root). > > > > It would be nice if standard UNIX utilities didn't barf on Gnome's > > extensions. > > And it's the case (as my user) : > $ ll .gvfs/ > total 4 > drwx------. 1 mathieu mathieu 4096 2009-10-29 22:38 sftp for bochecha > on fedorapeople.org > > Of course, as root : > # ll /home/mathieu/.gvfs > ls: cannot access /home/mathieu/.gvfs: Permission denied > > This is expected. See this thread : > https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+question/34333#5 > > Towards the end, someone called Fred explains it pretty well. i would say fred was doing well until he got to the end, and misspelled "bug" as "limitation". if it keeps root out, it's broken. paul =--------------------- paul fox, pgf at laptop.org From cjb at laptop.org Tue Jan 5 19:32:32 2010 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:32:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 104 Message-ID: <20100105193233.2217DFA937@dev.laptop.org> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5 http://build.laptop.org/10.2.0/os104 Compressed image size: 702.24mb (+0.20mb since build 103) Description of changes in this build: * Include Q3A26 * Fix for olpc-update contents verification (#9948) Package changes since build 103: -bitfrost-1.0.5-1.fc11.i586 +bitfrost-1.0.6-1.fc11.i586 -bootfw-q3a25-1.unsigned.i386 +bootfw-q3a26-1.unsigned.i386 -kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100104.1240.1.olpc.1774bf2.i586 +kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100104.2310.1.olpc.c0eb4f9.i586 -kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100104.1240.1.olpc.1774bf2.i586 +kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100104.2310.1.olpc.c0eb4f9.i586 From smparrish at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 00:18:14 2010 From: smparrish at gmail.com (Steven M. Parrish) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:18:14 -0500 Subject: New release of F11 for the XO-1 - Build11 Message-ID: <201001051918.14725.smparrish@gmail.com> This is the first release created with a new build system created by Daniel Drake. This new system can create builds for the XO-1 and XO-1.5. Known issues: Keyboard and mouse will not wakeup from sleep. Can be fixed by disabling power management in Sugar. Camera still does not work You can get it here http://dev.laptop.org/~smparrish/XO-1/builds/OS11 Issues can be filed @ http://dev.laptop.org/newticket Steven -- ===================================================== Steven M. Parrish ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gpg fingerprint: 4B6C 8357 059E B7ED 8095 0FD6 1F4B EDA0 A9A6 13C0 http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: Nickname: SMParrish Channels: #fedora-kde, #fedora-olpc, #fedora-edu, #sugar, #packagekit From sebastian at when.com Wed Jan 6 17:34:49 2010 From: sebastian at when.com (Sebastian Dziallas) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:34:49 +0100 Subject: Wrapping the Sugar Packaging Session up Message-ID: <4B44C9B9.4060902@when.com> Hi all, thanks everybody for attending! It was a great with cool questions and discussions. We're currently readying the logs, notes and docs which Mel logged in a GIT repo. So if you're interested in a practical step by step guide, looking at the repository would already be a good start. The logs go here (the page is currently being filled with content): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Classroom/Packaging_Sugar_Activities We'll meet tomorrow again at the same time, 1500 UTC in #fedora-olpc to discuss the session and how to proceed further. Thanks for attending! --Sebastian Make sure to drop me an e-mail if you've any questions! From tomeu at sugarlabs.org Wed Jan 6 19:16:07 2010 From: tomeu at sugarlabs.org (Tomeu Vizoso) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:16:07 +0100 Subject: two review requests Message-ID: <242851611001061116j6ab31a33m3abe93766535d4cd@mail.gmail.com> Hi, could someone lend a hand reviewing these two packages? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551411 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545039 Thanks, Tomeu -- ?Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.? - David Farning From pbrobinson at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 19:20:23 2010 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:20:23 +0000 Subject: two review requests In-Reply-To: <242851611001061116j6ab31a33m3abe93766535d4cd@mail.gmail.com> References: <242851611001061116j6ab31a33m3abe93766535d4cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5256d0b1001061120i17bef37ai2899fca669d9f580@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > Hi, > > could someone lend a hand reviewing these two packages? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551411 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545039 I was going to look at the xulrunner one tomorrow if it hadn't been looked at by then. I have concerns about the OS builder one as it includes 3rd party repos which is against Fedora policy. Peter From cjb at laptop.org Wed Jan 6 19:38:45 2010 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:38:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 105 Message-ID: <20100106193846.023AEFA946@dev.laptop.org> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5 http://build.laptop.org/10.2.0/os105 Compressed image size: 702.50mb (+0.25mb since build 104) Description of changes in this build: * workaround for wireless resume crash from dsd (#9836) Package changes since build 104: -gnome-keyring-2.26.3-1.fc11.i586 +gnome-keyring-2.26.3-2.fc11.i586 -kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100104.2310.1.olpc.c0eb4f9.i586 +kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100106.1110.1.olpc.76c32d5.i586 -kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100104.2310.1.olpc.c0eb4f9.i586 +kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100106.1110.1.olpc.76c32d5.i586 From quozl at laptop.org Wed Jan 6 20:07:56 2010 From: quozl at laptop.org (James Cameron) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:07:56 +1100 Subject: two review requests In-Reply-To: <5256d0b1001061120i17bef37ai2899fca669d9f580@mail.gmail.com> References: <242851611001061116j6ab31a33m3abe93766535d4cd@mail.gmail.com> <5256d0b1001061120i17bef37ai2899fca669d9f580@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20100106200756.GE5101@us.netrek.org> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 07:20:23PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > I have concerns about the OS builder one as it includes 3rd party > repos which is against Fedora policy. Could you point me at that policy please? I've had a look, and the closest I could find was: http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/csi/free-software-policy/en-US/html-single/#FreeSoftware-Standard-Choosing -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ From dsd at laptop.org Wed Jan 6 20:17:12 2010 From: dsd at laptop.org (Daniel Drake) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:17:12 +0000 Subject: two review requests In-Reply-To: <5256d0b1001061120i17bef37ai2899fca669d9f580@mail.gmail.com> References: <242851611001061116j6ab31a33m3abe93766535d4cd@mail.gmail.com> <5256d0b1001061120i17bef37ai2899fca669d9f580@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <818423da1001061217ga1d8379yce7ecb345b264178@mail.gmail.com> 2010/1/6 Peter Robinson : > I was going to look at the xulrunner one tomorrow if it hadn't been > looked at by then. I have concerns about the OS builder one as it > includes 3rd party repos which is against Fedora policy. What does that mean? It doesn't install any files into /etc/yum.repos.d Daniel From pbrobinson at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 20:20:07 2010 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:20:07 +0000 Subject: two review requests In-Reply-To: <20100106200756.GE5101@us.netrek.org> References: <242851611001061116j6ab31a33m3abe93766535d4cd@mail.gmail.com> <5256d0b1001061120i17bef37ai2899fca669d9f580@mail.gmail.com> <20100106200756.GE5101@us.netrek.org> Message-ID: <5256d0b1001061220x632c250bs914d421c582dd4c@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:07 PM, James Cameron wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 07:20:23PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: >> I have concerns about the OS builder one as it includes 3rd party >> repos which is against Fedora policy. > > Could you point me at that policy please? ?I've had a look, and the > closest I could find was: > > http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/csi/free-software-policy/en-US/html-single/#FreeSoftware-Standard-Choosing I'm not sure that there is one directly but they've never allowed the inclusion of say rpmfusion, or any sort of linking to it, and being outside of the project's control there's obviously no way to enforce their other policies. I've added a blocker on fe-legal to confirm what the policy is. Peter From pbrobinson at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 20:20:49 2010 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:20:49 +0000 Subject: two review requests In-Reply-To: <818423da1001061217ga1d8379yce7ecb345b264178@mail.gmail.com> References: <242851611001061116j6ab31a33m3abe93766535d4cd@mail.gmail.com> <5256d0b1001061120i17bef37ai2899fca669d9f580@mail.gmail.com> <818423da1001061217ga1d8379yce7ecb345b264178@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5256d0b1001061220i3f06a8aesf906d3f4ba72b1fb@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: > 2010/1/6 Peter Robinson : >> I was going to look at the xulrunner one tomorrow if it hadn't been >> looked at by then. I have concerns about the OS builder one as it >> includes 3rd party repos which is against Fedora policy. > > What does that mean? > It doesn't install any files into /etc/yum.repos.d No but it refers to a repo in mock.laptopp.org Peter From pbrobinson at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 20:23:42 2010 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:23:42 +0000 Subject: two review requests In-Reply-To: <5256d0b1001061220i3f06a8aesf906d3f4ba72b1fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <242851611001061116j6ab31a33m3abe93766535d4cd@mail.gmail.com> <5256d0b1001061120i17bef37ai2899fca669d9f580@mail.gmail.com> <818423da1001061217ga1d8379yce7ecb345b264178@mail.gmail.com> <5256d0b1001061220i3f06a8aesf906d3f4ba72b1fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5256d0b1001061223o4d1520efg1a5c6949df9a5d89@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: >> 2010/1/6 Peter Robinson : >>> I was going to look at the xulrunner one tomorrow if it hadn't been >>> looked at by then. I have concerns about the OS builder one as it >>> includes 3rd party repos which is against Fedora policy. >> >> What does that mean? >> It doesn't install any files into /etc/yum.repos.d > > No but it refers to a repo in mock.laptopp.org To note, I'm not against this necessarily but I want it confirmed by Fedora Legal. Peter From cjb at laptop.org Thu Jan 7 23:50:41 2010 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:50:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 106 Message-ID: <20100107235041.9C4FAFA947@dev.laptop.org> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5 http://build.laptop.org/10.2.0/os106 Compressed image size: 702.41mb (-0.09mb since build 105) Description of changes in this build: * potential fix for camera driver oops (#9958) * new runin tests release Package changes since build 105: -imsettings-0.107.3-1.fc11.i586 +imsettings-0.107.4-5.fc11.i586 -imsettings-libs-0.107.3-1.fc11.i586 +imsettings-libs-0.107.4-5.fc11.i586 -kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100106.1110.1.olpc.76c32d5.i586 +kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100107.1710.1.olpc.dcf1bc1.i586 -kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100106.1110.1.olpc.76c32d5.i586 +kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100107.1710.1.olpc.dcf1bc1.i586 -olpc-runin-tests-0.2-2.noarch +olpc-runin-tests-0.2.1-2.noarch From mavrothal at yahoo.com Fri Jan 8 14:18:36 2010 From: mavrothal at yahoo.com (Yioryos Asprobounitis) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 06:18:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: New release of F11 for the XO-1 - Build11 In-Reply-To: <201001051918.14725.smparrish@gmail.com> Message-ID: <841973.97957.qm@web65509.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> This is certainly an improved build. Pippy finally works and adding the camera and power management should make it ready :) The record activity in this version does not record sound either. This was not the case in the os10 and looks like a regression. The focusing problem in write activity (when single or double quote is typed) also remains, though I thought the dsd had fixed this. The problem that I had with the new build system and the resulting link-heavy builds is that I could not rpm -i a different kernel. I was trying to see if the kernel from here ( http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2009-December/026909.html ) will fix the camera problem but the new kernel was nowhere to be found, even if rpm reported no problems during installation. Is this because this kernel predates the current build system, by design, or a bug? --- On Tue, 1/5/10, Steven M. Parrish wrote: > From: Steven M. Parrish > Subject: New release of F11 for the XO-1 - Build11 > To: "fedora-olpc-list" , "OLPC Devel" , "Sugar Development" , devel-announce at lists.laptop.org, testing at lists.laptop.org > Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2010, 7:18 PM > This is the first release created > with a new build system created by Daniel > Drake.? This new system can create builds for the XO-1 > and XO-1.5. > > Known issues: > > Keyboard and mouse will not wakeup from sleep.? Can be > fixed by disabling > power management in Sugar. > > Camera still does not work > > You can get it here? http://dev.laptop.org/~smparrish/XO-1/builds/OS11 > > Issues can be filed @ http://dev.laptop.org/newticket > > Steven > -- > ===================================================== > Steven M. Parrish > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > gpg fingerprint: 4B6C 8357 059E B7ED 8095 0FD6 1F4B EDA0 > A9A6 13C0 > http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/ > irc.freenode.net: > Nickname: SMParrish > Channels: #fedora-kde, #fedora-olpc, #fedora-edu, #sugar, > #packagekit > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list > Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list > From cjb at laptop.org Fri Jan 8 23:20:19 2010 From: cjb at laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 18:20:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 107 Message-ID: <20100108232019.76922FA947@dev.laptop.org> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/F11_for_1.5 http://build.laptop.org/10.2.0/os107 Compressed image size: 702.57mb (+0.07mb since build 105) Description of changes in this build: * Remove kernel SD debugging code that I pushed accidentally. Package changes since build 105: +acl-2.2.47-4.fc11.i586 -acl-2.2.49-2.fc11.i586 -imsettings-0.107.3-1.fc11.i586 +imsettings-0.107.4-5.fc11.i586 -imsettings-libs-0.107.3-1.fc11.i586 +imsettings-libs-0.107.4-5.fc11.i586 -kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100106.1110.1.olpc.76c32d5.i586 +kernel-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100108.1640.1.olpc.846ed3a.i586 -kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100106.1110.1.olpc.76c32d5.i586 +kernel-firmware-2.6.31_xo1.5-20100108.1640.1.olpc.846ed3a.i586 +libacl-2.2.47-4.fc11.i586 -libacl-2.2.49-2.fc11.i586 -olpc-runin-tests-0.2-2.noarch +olpc-runin-tests-0.2.1-2.noarch From mikus at bga.com Sat Jan 9 06:35:41 2010 From: mikus at bga.com (Mikus Grinbergs) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:35:41 -0600 Subject: OLPC does end run around IP addresses Message-ID: <4B4823BD.8060704@bga.com> I don't have wireless - my XOs are on ethernet (using interface eth1). Currently I am running without a DNS server - meaning that I need to issue explicit commands at each XO to set its eth1 IP address. Just now I've been testing with a deliberately non-customized XO-1 -- I have NOT issued any commands to it to set its IP address. It is running build 802B1, and has by default set IP addresses of 169.254... for its eth0 and msh0 interfaces (its ethernet eth1 interface has only a default IPv6 address). Netstat at that XO shows only the 169.254 routes. The other XOs on the ethernet have IPv4 IP addresses only on eth1, in the 192.168.1.. range. They have no IPv4 addresses for their radios. Netstat at those XOs shows only the 168.192.1 route. What I find interesting is that Neighborhood View at every XO shows *all* other XOs (plus their names) physically attached to the ethernet. 'olpc-xos' shows the non-customized XO with its eth0 (radio) IP address; the other XOs are shown with their eth1 (ethernet) IP addresses. My conclusion: The XOs are recognizing each other over the ethernet, despite having "non-pingable" IP address identities activated. mikus From mikus at bga.com Sat Jan 9 10:03:27 2010 From: mikus at bga.com (Mikus Grinbergs) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:03:27 -0600 Subject: OLPC does end run around IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: <4B4823BD.8060704@bga.com> Message-ID: <4B48546F.1020707@bga.com> >> What I find interesting is that Neighborhood View at every XO shows >> *all* other XOs (plus their names) physically attached to the ethernet. >> 'olpc-xos' shows the non-customized XO with its eth0 (radio) IP >> address; the other XOs are shown with their eth1 (ethernet) IP addresses. >> >> My conclusion: The XOs are recognizing each other over the ethernet, >> despite having "non-pingable" IP address identities activated. > > The 169.x.x.x subnet is reserved for link-local addresses, which is > what these are. They are pingable from the local link. It's all > standards-compliant and kosher, be not afraid. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address I'm not afraid (nor am I looking for help). I understand whence the 169.x.x.x subnet comes from. My point is that ALL the XOs show up in each Neighborhood View, even though the other XOs (192.168.1..) cannot ping the non-customized XO (169.254...), nor can the non-customized XO ping the others. What I see the XOs doing is an "end run" around my concept of how remote nodes are supposed to be accessed. I believe 'ping' is behaving the standards-compliant way (192.168.1.0/24 does not access 169.254.0.0/16, and vice versa). Whereas what shows up in the XO Neighborhood View (and in 'olpc-xos') appears to ignore standards-compliance. As I said, I am not looking for help. I am sharing an observation, which I believe would not occur if I were not using XOs. mikus From mikus at bga.com Sat Jan 9 16:28:27 2010 From: mikus at bga.com (Mikus Grinbergs) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:28:27 -0600 Subject: OLPC does end run around IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20100109095634.GA2885@twin.sascha.silbe.org> References: <4B4823BD.8060704@bga.com> <4B48546F.1020707@bga.com> <20100109095634.GA2885@twin.sascha.silbe.org> Message-ID: <4B48AEAB.2020101@bga.com> > IIRC Salut is using some multicast protocol. Multicast has its own set of IP addresses [1], > with Salut most likely using one from the link-local range (224./24). > So Salut should work IFF all machines are on the same ethernet segment. Thank you -- now it makes sense. mikus