Meeting status tomorrow: unsure.

[Steven M. Parrish]

On Wednesday 11 February 2009 18:00:53 Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> All right.  We are *supposed* to have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow at
> 1300 Eastern US time, which is 1800 UTC.  #fedora-olpc on freenode.
>
> However, I'm a bit nervous about the prospect of wasting people's time.
> Here's the thing, and it pains me to admit it: I'm not sure where we are,
> exactly.  I've had a good bit less official job time to devote to this
> effort lately, and our current status is a bit of a mystery to me.
>
> Here's what I think I know:
>
> * We've got lots of packages queued up for acceptance into F-11, and
> SMParrish has been reviewing new stuff like mad.  Yay!

This is the list of sugar packages still needing review:  However they have 
issues which currently prevent a final review/inclusion in Fedora.

sugar-read   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467642   
- Pending rebuild with new gnome-python2-evince

sugar-record  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476435
- Comments from the request : I guess that there will be more to do on this
- package because it is not noarch and the camera stuff will not work on
- Fedora. 

sugar-tamtam-common  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478381
- License issues corrected.  Awaiting branch merge and new tarballs

sugar-tamtam-edit  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478382
- License issues corrected.  Awaiting branch merge and new tarballs

sugar-tamtam-jam  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478383
- Depends on sugar-tamtam-common

sugar-tamtam-mini  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478384
- Depends on sugar-tamtam-common

sugar-tamtam-synthlab  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478385
- Depends on sugar-tamtam-common

sugar-update-control  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481333
- My package so I cant review it

If anyone knows of any other packages that need review for Sugar please let me 
know



>
> * Marco tracked down the weird boot issues with rawhide and the XO, and
> those should now be fixed.  Yay!
>
> * People are tackling individual issues as they find them.  Yay!
>
> All of this is great.  However:
>
> * It's still unclear to me which packages in dist-olpc4 are building
> because they have to build, and which have simply not been untagged;
>
> * It's still unclear to me which necessary packages are still sitting in
> joyride and have yet to be brought into rawhide;
>
> * The process for keeping track of all of this is currently in poor shape,
> which is, admittedly, my fault.
>
> So I'd like to step back and ask a question.
>
> Since the goal is to create a bootable build of F-11 on the XO -- how is
> that process going?  I know there have been discussions; where are we,
> right now, with this process?
>
> I'm wondering if it might not be the best idea, at this point, to go ahead
> and start working backwards from rawhide, and see what's busted, and start
> tracking that in bugzilla.
>
> I welcome people's thoughts.
>
> --g
>
> --
> Got an XO that you're not using?  Loan it to a needy developer!
>    [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-olpc-list mailing list
> Fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list