joyride builds based on F10
by Tomeu Vizoso
Hi Peter and Michael,
I would like to start getting F10-based joyride images as soon as it's
possible, but as I know little about the joyride system and fedora,
perhaps you could answer my following question: what needs to happen
before we can start to get automatic OLPC builds based on F10?
Thanks,
Tomeu
15 years, 6 months
RE: Introduction of new member
by David Farning
Hey PascalGreat to have you with us. Indiana is a leader in the open source in education field.Fedora OLPC is actually two project for the price of one:) One side is running Fedora on the XO and the other is running Sugar on a stock Fedora systems.thanksdavid
On 10/21/2008, 11:49, Pascal Calarco (pcalarco(a)nd.edu) wrote:Hi folks -- I am an Ambassador from Indiana, USA, and also on the editorial team for Fedora Weekly News. I am a librarian and a manager of a computing unit in the Hesburgh Libraries at the University of Notre Dame. We have a 10-server RHEL/GFS cluster to manage several enterprise business and end-user systems for a consortia of four private colleges located around Notre Dame. Fedora has been my daily desktop environment since FC2, and I've been a linux user on and off since picking up Red Hat Linux 3.03 back around 1996/97 or so. I am going to join the SIG in order to step up coverage of the Fedora OLPC SIG in Fedora Weekly News. I recently attended the Ohio LinuxFest, and the XOs we had at the Fedora booth were a huge draw for attendees, and I think highlighting more of the work of the SIG will pay dividends for the broader Fedora project as a whole. I'm also subscribed to the OLPC community
news list, and I'll pull Fedora relevant items from there as well. I should be able to make most of the OLPC SIG IRC meetings, which I understand are Fridays at 1:00 pm Eastern. Cheers, - pascal https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pcalarco _______________________________________________ Fedora-olpc-list mailing list Fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-olpc-list
15 years, 6 months
Moving OLPC merge to mainline forwards
by Peter Robinson
OK,
To begin the merge of the OLPC branches into mainline I'm going to
start attacking the easy list (IE number 3 from my previous email -
inc below). For the packages like the libertas firmware its just a
matter of moving the newer builds that are in the OLPC branches into
rawhide and getting them built. I presume as joyride is still FC-9
based we'd push it into that branch as well to keep it as clean as
possible when the rebase occurs. Alot of the OLPC only packages don't
have anything in devel anyway, and the last just need a final check
that there any differences between OLPC/F-9/rawhide before they're
untagged so as to pull the mainline package. Any objections? I've
requested uberpackager to assist in getting that done, not sure if
anyone here can approve that.
Once they're built mainline who do I need to bother and how to get the
branch untagged?
For section 2 of the previous emaill [1] below I've discovered they'll
be in people's public_rpms dirs on dev.laptop.org so any hints as to
the location in that structure I would appreciate it.
Cheers,
Peter
3 - Forked but essentially the same, original fork fixed etc
gstreamer-python,0.10.7-2.olpc3.1 - NO DIFF (prob dep on newer vers of
other gst packages)
hulahop,0.4.6-4.olpc3 - identical - suspect needs xulrunner python
which is now upstream so can merge
libertas-usb8388-firmware,2:5.110.22.p18-1.olpc2 - upstream although
slightly older ver p14 vs 18 - should push new ver upstream and merge
- no OLPC branch
ntp-ntpdate,4.2.4p4-7.olpc3 - adds keys and step-tickers (looks like
should be merged with upstream)
ohm,0.1.1-6.21.20080921git.olpc3 - no upstream devel - OLPC branch
just needs to be moved into head
olpc-utils,0.89-1.olpc3 - original import in devel, just need to merge
changes to mainline
olpcsound,5.08.92-11.olpc3 - fork of csound so is exclusive to olpc
but no reason not to merge to mainline
pyabiword,0.6.1-4.olpc3 - identical (suspect due to abiword fork but
should work fine as only abiword diff is a perl file removed for dep)
sugar,0.82.9-3.olpc3 - Same but a later build in OLPC
sugar-artwork,0.82.3-1.olpc3 - Identical
sugar-datastore,0.82.1-1.olpc3 - Same but two conflicting changes in
devel vs OLPC but easy to merge disparate changes
sugar-journal,99-4.olpc3 - Same but a later build in OLPC
sugar-toolkit,0.82.11-6.olpc3 - Same but a later build in OLPC
xorg-x11-utils,7.4-2.olpc3 - issue for branch (deps) has been fixed so
can be merged with mainline
[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-olpc-list/2008-October/msg00025.html
15 years, 6 months
Introduction of new member
by Pascal Calarco
Hi folks --
I am an Ambassador from Indiana, USA, and also on the editorial team for
Fedora Weekly News. I am a librarian and a manager of a computing unit
in the Hesburgh Libraries at the University of Notre Dame. We have a
10-server RHEL/GFS cluster to manage several enterprise business and
end-user systems for a consortia of four private colleges located around
Notre Dame. Fedora has been my daily desktop environment since FC2, and
I've been a linux user on and off since picking up Red Hat Linux 3.03
back around 1996/97 or so.
I am going to join the SIG in order to step up coverage of the Fedora
OLPC SIG in Fedora Weekly News. I recently attended the Ohio LinuxFest,
and the XOs we had at the Fedora booth were a huge draw for attendees,
and I think highlighting more of the work of the SIG will pay dividends
for the broader Fedora project as a whole. I'm also subscribed to the
OLPC community news list, and I'll pull Fedora relevant items from there
as well. I should be able to make most of the OLPC SIG IRC meetings,
which I understand are Fridays at 1:00 pm Eastern.
Cheers,
- pascal
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pcalarco
15 years, 6 months
Problem while building packages
by Fabian Affolter
Hi all,
Today I started with packaging some of the XO activities for Fedora 9.
Unfortunately I not able to build any packages because I'm running in a
python trackback.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./setup.py", line 21, in <module>
bundlebuilder.start()
TypeError: start() takes exactly 1 argument (0 given)
Even if I try the sugar-log.spec from Simpon Schampijer I recieve this
error message. Missing dependencies? Wrong parameter? Wrong setup of
my machine?
All hints and tips are welcome. Thanks in advance.
Kind regards,
Fabian
--
Fingerprint: 2F6C 930F D3C4 7E38 6AFA 4EB4 E23C D2DD 36A4 397F
Fedora always leads and never follows.
15 years, 6 months
XO: REMINDER - Roll call for test teams
by James Laska
Greetings folks,
Just a friendly reminder, there are 2 days remaining to sign-up for a
specific XO test area.
The roll call request was sent by Steve Salevan and can be found at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2008-October/msg00774.html.
Please take a moment to review the posted test areas. We are looking
for team members and team leads to engage in targeted testing starting
next week. If a particular area strikes your fancy, please don't
hesitate to sign up.
For those folks still waiting for your XO delivery, thank you for your
patience!
Thanks,
James
15 years, 7 months
Re: Sugar in RHEL
by David Farning
Background -
I started a conversation on k12osn about getting sugar on LTSP a few months ago. The consensus on the list was that we;
Package Sugar for Fedora-done,
Start Sugar as a standard x-session-done,
Work on shrinking the memory requirements-good progress.
At that point, they indicated that they would be willing to take another look at Sugar.
Now that the Fedora OLPC team has met the orginal three critria, I have started another thread about what areas we should target next.
The requirement that Sugar be on REHL was not an answer to a specific question. It was based on a general LTPS Fedora into RHEL? Is there a backports repository? Or do we wait until > the new release? > > I ask because the k12OSN developers are reluctant to start working on > Sugar until it is available as official RHEL package. An "official" RHEL package? I think that's unlikely for quite a while. Would they be satisfied with seeing it in EPEL, which is the Extras repository for Enterprise Linux? Because getting the packages into EPEL would be much simpler. What's their motivation? Maybe there's a contact I could talk with? Is this Eric Harrison et al? --g
15 years, 7 months
