On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Samuel Greenfeld <sam...@greenfeld.org> wrote: > The obvious counterargument would be that a deployment might want to deploy > your XO-Next (whatever it is) alongside existing XO laptops, allowing all of > them to have the same configuration.
From my memory of olpc-os-builder it was very modular and wouldn't be hard to add dozens of different devices support to it. > There's plenty of blame to go around in terms of re-inventing the wheel and > lack of communication. Yep! > There simply (and correct me if I'm wrong) are not the resources inside of > OLPC, outside, or combined at this time to maintain and update two separate > builds & build systems. > > It amazes me how far we bend over backwards to avoid saying "end of life" > and "end of support". > > > I have seen a fair amount of interest, both publicly and privately, for > newer XO laptop builds. But I don't think the requesters realize how much > work it takes to make one. The big one here is kernel kernel kernel. > And I do not forsee anyone stepping up to get the XO-1.75 and XO-4 kernel & > drivers into a state they can be upstreamed or upgraded for newer Fedoras > unless a deployment really wants this instead of newer equipment. Or even the 1.5, I believe most of the XO-1 support is upsteream. > Newer operating systems tend to require more disk space and RAM than the > predecessors. We have seen this even within Fedora's lineage. Yes, and no. I mean 1Gb of the original XO-1 is tight, but SoaS still happily fits in 4Gb with a bunch of space to spare. Looking at my current SoaS VM the used space is around 1.9Gb. Amusingly the various cloud/container enterprise initiatives actively help us here because for once they care about dependency bloat too :-) The two things that add bloat to the current SoaS image are: * Browse needs to be converted to the new WebKitGtk APIs so we don't ship two copies of WebKitGtk. * Conversion of remaining gstreamer 0.10 to 1.0 to allow us not to ship that. Ultimately I think you could with a little development effort get it down to 1.5Gb used space which would make a 2Gb filesystem quite usable. > Since OLPC already appears to be going the Ubuntu LTS route, I would argue > it would be easiest to take everything that way, porting utilities as > required, and make that the final image & build system for XOs. Personally I have no interest in that. I wish you luck. > I only have a limited number of hours per week I can look into OLPC things, > but I'm tempted to take a look. > > > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:50 PM, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 09:29:46PM -0400, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: >> > It might be possible for this new builder to be eventually taught to >> > handle XOs. >> >> There was no significant interest in my previous builder uxo, which >> already knows how to handle XOs. The recent posts on devel@ of people >> trying something similar without looking at uxo is further evidence of >> that. >> >> So for the moment, there seems to be no need for my new builder to >> handle XO-1, XO-1.5, XO-1.75 or XO-4 laptops. The Fedora based >> builder is working fine for those laptops. >> >> -- >> James Cameron >> http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel