Sugar in RHEL
by David Farning
What will be the process for migrating the new Sugar packages from 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.
thanks
david
15 years, 7 months
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] sugar spin and liveusb-creator
by Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Caroline Meeks
<caroline(a)solutiongrove.com>wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
> I'd like a Wiki page where you and I can track tasks that need to be done
> before I can do the next test run at each of the 2 schools and also write
> down which version of Sugar we plan to test next at which school.
>
Yup.
>
> Should I make a page on the Sugarlabs site or should I set it up on the
> School Key wiki and give you an account there?
>
It probably make sense to have it on the SL wiki for now. What about:
http://sugarlabs.org/go/DeploymentTeam/School_Key
Marco
15 years, 7 months
Re: [IAEP] [sugar] sugar spin and liveusb-creator
by Luke Macken
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 03:55:12PM -0400, Caroline Meeks wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <mpgritti(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Luke Macken <lmacken(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 05:19:44PM +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Sebastian Dziallas <sebastian(a)when.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/olpc/liveusb-creator-3.0.zip
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > I tried this on windows xp. I unzipped the directory on the Desktop and
> >> run
> >> > the executable. It didn't work. I'm attaching the log... any idea?
> >>
> >> Please give this one a shot.
> >>
> >>
> >> https://fedorahosted.org/releases/l/i/liveusb-creator/liveusb-creator-3.0...
> >>
> >> If that works for you, I'll kick out an official 3.0 release.
> >>
> >
> > It works great... thanks!!!
> >
> > Marco
> >
>
> I was able to get this to run. However, I was also able to download it in a
> way that did not let it run. Probably created some sort of path issue.
>
> Here is how I failed.
>
> Choose Open With Extractor rather then Download file.
> When I extract the files I picked a new location (My Documents).
>
> To succeed I downloaded it to the desktop then extracted it to the desktop.
Yeah, when you selected Open With Extractor it must have only extracted
the exe file, and not the DLLs and other tools (7Zip, dd, syslinux).
This happens to a lot of people, and I'm not sure of any way to avoid
it. Sadly, we have to ship the M$ C & C++ runtimes to ensure that the
tool runs on a freshly installed box. The problem with Sebastian's
build was that he did not manually add the C++ runtime DLL :(
I've made a note of this in the liveusb-creator Developers Guide, and
also a note on the front page about having to extract the entire zip
before running.
Cheers,
luke
15 years, 7 months
sugar spin and liveusb-creator
by Sebastian Dziallas
Hi all,
you may have already noticed, but we've got a Sugar spin based on Fedora
up here:
http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/olpc/sugar-spin.iso
The image itself is already a few days old, and there will be a new one
soonish -- but I wanted to wait with a new release until we can get the
sugar-browse activity into Fedora and that way on the spin, since this
greatly improves the spin's usability.
But that's not the main reason for this post: Inspired by an idea from
Greg and thanks to help from Luke Macken, we've now a liveusb-creator
build for Windows with support for the Sugar spin available here:
http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/olpc/liveusb-creator-3.0.zip
What does this mean? Well, you can now just run liveusb-creator on
Windows and get that way the latest Sugar spin on your USB key, from
which you can then boot (once your BIOS supports that).
If you try it out and have any feedback, please make sure to come up
with it.
--Sebastian
15 years, 7 months
joyride 2514 vs rawhide
by Peter Robinson
Hi All,
Having had a bit of time over the weekend while on call for work I did
some comparisons between packages in rawhide and those in joyride [1]
to see what had been merged upstream like what was done back in August
or so. The was I worked it out was just a basic grep to remove .fc9
packages as to see what was left. The first 3 sections are easy fix
and mostly either the package isn't in Fedora (first section), is
using a branch that's not in Fedora cvs (is there a cvs for OLPC
packages) or ones that are easy to merge with mainline.
It looks like 8.2.0 release is now done so the fixes would be going
towards 9.1 one at a guess, and I suspect some of this will be
dependent on whether its based on F-9 still or F-10.
Anyway, I'm not sure if the info below is useful. Sections 3 and 4
(and at least some in section 2) should be fairly simple to get
aligned with mainline fedora devel, and probably pushed to F-9 as well
if necessary. I can look to get this done if it would be helpful but
if its not I don't want to waste time on it. If so let me know. I
think the process would be essentially get any changes/fixes if
necessary into mainline and the get joyride to pull the mainline
package in rather than the branch. Once that's done the branch would
then get marked as dead. So let me know if its a help and if someone
wants me to do further.
Peter
1 - Not in Fedora
Mothanna-fonts,0.02-3.olpc3 - awaiting review - RHBZ 462711
bootfw,q2e19-1.olpc2.unsigned - no review bug
cerebro,2.9.16-1.olpc3 - no review bug
ds-backup-client,0.8.1-1.olpc3 - no review bug
squeak-vm,3.10-3olpc11 - no review bug
olpc-contents,2.5-1 - no review bug
olpc-library-common,1-31 - no review bug
olpc-licenses,8.2.0.0-1.olpc3 - no review bug
olpcrd,0.48-0 - no review bug
olpcsudo,1.4-1 - no review bug
olpc-update,2.17-1 - no review bug
2 - No OLPC branch in Fedora CVS (not sure where to find them)
numpy,1.1.1-1.olpc3.1 - no olpc3 branch
libX11,1.1.4-3.olpc3 - no olpc3 branch but an olpc2 one
python,2.5.1-26.olpc3.1 - no branch
yum,3.2.19-3.1.olpc3 - no branch
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
4 - Forked but fixed with simple fix
pygtk2,2.12.1-6.olpc3.1 - Only a patch to use numpy instead of
numeric. Not sure if numpy support is in the 2.13 release in rawhide
libabiword,1:2.6.4-6.olpc3 - removes perl - will be fixed in 2.6.5 RHBZ # 463924
pygame,1.8.0-1.olpc3.3 - OLPC package has an added "Requires:
SDL_Pango" without the buildreq but no other diff should be merged U/S
xkeyboard-config,1.3-4.olpc3 - patches for different language
keyboards. 1 is already in devel so probably can merge with mainline
and move patches there (do these patches also need to be submitted for
upstream) as it would affect Fedora on OLPC too.
5 - Forked for features
gnome-python2,2.22.1-3.olpc3 - disables bonobo
gnome-vfs2,2.22.0-3.olpc3 - remove gnome-mount req
gstreamer,0.10.12-3.olpc3 - removes docs - could they be split out to
a docs package? also a very old version - v12 vs 21
gstreamer-plugins-base,0.10.12-4.olpc3.4 - removes docs and
cdparanoia, adds gnomevfs (upstream moved to gio?)
gstreamer-plugins-good,0.10.5-7.olpc3.1 - removes docs, old version
gnash,0.8.3-1.olpc3.2 - deps
hal,0.5.11-2.olpc3.1 - adds a patch to disable batt polling
hal-info,20080607-1.olpc3.1 - adds battery-fdi.patch to disable batt polling
initscripts,8.76.2-1.olpc3.7 - no idea! jkatz knows what's needed I think
kernel,2.6.25-20080925.1.olpc.f10b654367d7065 - no idea!
NetworkManager,1:0.6.5-0.11.svn3246.olpc3 - mesh patches. Is there an
upstream BZ for this?
poppler,0.6.2-5.olpc3 - disables gtk-test, abiword and splash output,
random spec updates
SDL_mixer,1.2.8-8.olpc3.1 - Drops req on timidity++-patches
sugar-evince,2.20.1.1-4.olpc3 - issue of old evince branch with new
poppler. Test packages using a merge from upstream evince in
olpc#7615telepathy-gabble,0.7.6-4.olpc3 - patch to disable security
telepathy-salut,0.3.3-8.olpc3 - patch to disable security
totem,2.23.4-1.olpc3.6 - due to t-p-p dep issues plus other deps
totem-pl-parser,2.23.2-2.olpc3 - dependency issues with e-d-s
upstart,0.3.9-19.olpc3.1 - old version, patch to run as PID other than
1 - jkatz knows?
xorg-x11-server-common,1.4.99.906-2.olpc3.4 - Looks like difference is
a patch so it don't abort if mesa swrast library is not found
xulrunner,1.9.0.2-2.olpc3 - remove deps + some specific patches
(pyxpcom now enabled upstream)
[1] http://dev.laptop.org/~rwh/announcer/stream_data/joyride/2514.pkgs
15 years, 7 months
Re: [Server-devel] Revisor / yum odd error with f9 updates.newkey repo: Missing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.8-3 is needed by package glibc-2.8-3.i386
by Martin Langhoff
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:23 AM, seth vidal <skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> The error is
>> Missing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.8-3 is needed by package
>> glibc-2.8-3.i386
>
> Is there any other debug information available?
>
> _something_ is pulling in glibc-2.8-3 instead of 2.8-8. That's what's
> horking the issue with 2.8-3, most likely.
>
> But without more debugging info I'm hard pressed to tell you what's
> happening.
Can't get revisor to give me a separate yum log at the moment, but I
managed to get yum into high-debug mode. So the messages are mixed
between revisor and yum, but it seems to make sense:
http://dev.laptop.org/~martin/revisoryum.log.bz2
It definitely sees 2.8-8, and I can't spot anything that calls
glibc-2.8-3 *except* that there's a mention of it being included "from
Groups" --
Including glibc
>From Groups: Adding glibc-0:2.8-8.i686 to transaction
>From Groups: Adding glibc-0:2.8-8.i386 to transaction
>From Groups: Adding glibc-0:2.8-3.i386 to transaction
>From Groups: Adding glibc-0:2.8-3.i686 to transaction
and later 2.8-3 wants the matching glibc-common, which *is* in the
repo. However, yum doesn't like it and it doesn't settle for the 2.8-8
set.
Do the logs make sense to you?
Also -- I did add glibc and glibc-common explicitly to the kickstart
file, but it didn't make a difference.
cheers,
m
--
martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
martin(a)laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
15 years, 7 months
