Forked packages for OLPC

[Jeremy Katz]

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:28 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:34:16 -0500 Dennis Gilmore <dennis at ausil.us> wrote:
> > > ./texlive/OLPC-3
> > rebuild against the old poppler
> > > ./poppler/OLPC-3
> > using an old version not sure why.
> 
> Who can investigate poppler and maybe figure out what's up?

Apparently the sugar-evince needs the old one?  I suspect this just
needs someone to sit down and do some updating.  I wouldn't expect it to
be difficult 

> > ./telepathy-salut/OLPC-3
> > has a patch that disables security that upstream wouldnt take.  i
> > wanted them to add it as a run time option.  the dbus security breaks
> > rainbow
> > > ./telepathy-gabble/OLPC-3
> > has a patch that disables security that upstream wouldnt take.  i
> > wanted them to add it as a run time option.  the dbus security breaks
> > rainbow
> 
> Is this going to be a permanent fork?  Can OLPC move away from needing
> this patch, or can we convince upstream to take an amended patch?

And more -- what sort of security is the problem here?  dbus security is
something that is kind of important, even for olpc.

> > > ./xorg-x11-server/OLPC-3
> > needed to enable evdev.  Fedora disables it
> 
> Any idea why Fedora disables it?  Can Ajax be convinced to enable it
> again?

evdev just wasn't ready for f9.  We're making another go at it for f10
now that whot is onboard afaik.

> > > ./hulahop/OLPC-3
> > needs pyxpcom which is not enabled in fedora's xulrunner 
> > > ./xulrunner/OLPC-3
> > needed to enable pyxpcom  it needs to get enabled in fedora so that
> > browse can work, caillion is supposed to be fixing.  but as yet has
> > not.
> 
> Is there a BZ for this?  Does caillon need to be nudged?

caillon is very aware on this one

> > > ./initscripts/OLPC-3
> > is needed 
> 
> Does it make sense to have an olpc-initscripts package that is in
> Fedora proper?

What sort of changes are being made here?  I could look and if there's
not a response by later when I have time to investigate, I will :-)

> > > ./upstart/OLPC-3
> > init doesnt run as pid 1  due to the way the intramfs runs  should be
> > fixed.
> 
> Does that mean it should already be fixed, and we can get rid of this,
> or that it needs to be fixed?  Is there a BZ for it?

/sbin/init needs to be running as pid 1.  If the olpc initramfs doesn't
ensure that that's the case, then it needs to be fixed, not hacking
around it in other packages.


Jeremy