Forked packages for OLPC

[Robin Norwood]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:42:48 -0400
Daniel Drake <dsd at laptop.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:28 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
> Forks are still needed for some of these:
> gnash was forked to bring dependencies down, I don't think we want
> those deps back.

Ah, then gnash should go on the 'forked for deps' list, and we should
work to get those deps split out.

> I'm happy to unfork ntp now that Fedora have made the same changes.
> How can I do that?

I think you just need to request that someone on the infrastructure
team untag ntp from olpc-3.  Dennis can do that, and probably anything
else that needs doing.

> pygame fork is needed. I have tried to get upstream to take our
> changes so that we can unfork. No response yet.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457074

I just emailed Chris Stone and asked him if he minds if I go ahead and
make the change (or he can).  This is probably an effective strategy
for this sort of thing - the interested part(y|ies) in OLPC-land can
just sign up to co-maintain the Fedora package, and get things done.
It should be less work than having an entirely separate fork.

> > > > ./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?
> 
> It should be easy to fix, but we seemed to reach consensus that it is
> too late to upgrade this for our 8.2 release which we are rapidly
> closing in on.

Ok.  As long as there's a need and a roadmap, having a fork isn't bad.

> > Are there BZ's filed for these so work can be done to split up the
> > Fedora packages so OLPC can only take the smallest bits?
> 
> sugar-evince:
> http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/7926
> http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/7927
> 
> SDL_mixer: don't think so
> 
> gnome-python2: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456122
> 
> olpcsound: don't think so, but actually forking and providing seperate
> source tarballs is what upstream have agreed to. I think we should
> just build this in F-9 instead.
> 
> gstreamer-plugins-base: no bugzilla that I know of
> 
> gnome-vfs2: don't think so.

Excellent.  I'm going to try to get all this data in the wiki tonight
so we don't lose track of it.

> > > > ./totem/OLPC-3
> > > need a minimal totem  that doesnt bring in perl and some gnome
> > > libraries, F-9's  was horribly broken,  we are using totem from
> > > rawhide
> > > > ./totem-pl-parser/OLPC-3
> > > needed version from rawhide to match totem.  it had better
> > > Requires
> > 
> > Is there a BZ to track this?
> 
> totem-pl-parser wasn't forked to match totem, it was instead forked to
> drop a humongous dependency chain.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456113 
> I don't see this being fixed upstream or in Fedora any time soon:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=522639

Well, it looks like Matt Barnes is continuing to work on splitting
camel <-> EDS, so there's hope for the future, even if it takes awhile.

-RN

-- 
Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.

"The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone."
-Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching