Yes, that's why I asked. Installing VLC doesn't work out of the box with 13.2.8, and there are different ways it could be done. I don't know what Ibiam did. I need to know before I can reproduce.
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 10:33:27PM +0100, Samson Goddy wrote: > $> su - > #> yum localinstall --nogpgcheck > https://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-$(rpm -E > %fedora).noarch.rpm > #> yum install vlc > #> yum install python-vlc npapi-vlc (optionals) > > Can help, yum install vlc will not work until you use this. At least that how > i > got it working. > > Samson > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:58 PM, James Cameron <[2]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > Thanks. Are you using 13.2.8? > > The Fedora repositories for Fedora 18 moved, and this was fixed in > 13.2.8, see here; > > [3]http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/13.2.7#Fedora_ > Repositories_Missing > > If you are using 13.2.7 or earlier, please use the workaround on that > page. > > I've just tested "sudo yum install vlc" on XO-1.5 with 13.2.8 and no > problem seen, just "No package vlc available.", so I'm not sure how > your system is configured; if the above workaround does not fix, > please show me your changed yum.repos.d files. > > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:48:54PM +0100, Chihurumnaya Ibiam wrote: > > Hey James, since you're still maintaining fedora18, "sudo yum vlc" - any > > activity- returns this error "Error cannot retrieve metalink for > repository > > fedora18/i386" , editing the *fedora.repo files in /etc/yum.repos.d/ and > > changing > > all "https" to "http" solves the problem. > > > > Ibiam Chihurumnaya > > > > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:58 AM, James Cameron <[1][4]qu...@laptop.org> > wrote: > > > > Composite reply to several posts, in context, see below; > > > > Samson wrote: > > > I think we should really join the trend so that we can get more > > > people using Sugar for Learning. So what are your thought on this > > > development? > > > > I don't think it will work, as we don't have developers interested > in > > it. If you're interested in it and are happy to commit fully > without > > relying on others, go for it. But don't expect other resources to > get > > involved; as the argument from numbers is not compelling enough. > > > > There are more learning tools available for Windows. > > > > But the numbers are not the only reason why our customers choose > > Linux. > > > > Sebastian wrote: > > > Sugar barely runs [...] > > > > Yes, you're right. > > > > > committed releasing Sugar every six months [...] we have no > release > > > schedule. > > > > Yes, you're right. > > > > A new release of Sugar with the bug fixes since 0.110 would help > solve > > the "barely runs" problem. > > > > (also a release of the critical activities, not just the core; > > newcomers to our community should note the term Sucrose has been in > > our Taxonomy for many years, see the Wiki if you don't know what it > > means.) > > > > [2][5]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy > > [3][6]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Glossary > > > > > I don't see Sugar Labs organization as capable of strategically > > > funding Sugar development in any direction. Of course, volunteers > > > can work in whatever they like, if it fits their principles. > > > > I agree, and that's the basis of my engagement; subject to also > > stabilising Sugar for OLPC OS on Fedora 18 and Ubuntu 16.04 for > > delivery to OLPC customers; as a custom system with all obvious (to > > me) bugs fixed. > > > > Sugar Labs is heavily benefiting from my work for OLPC, and OLPC is > > benefiting from other volunteers at Sugar Labs. > > > > Dave wrote: > > > codebase could be returned to OLPC > > > > No thanks. Where would the Sugar Labs volunteers go who are focused > > on this codebase? > > > > OLPC already maintains a fork with the fixes, and the changes that > > Sugar Labs has not accepted. All fixes have been pushed back to > Sugar > > Labs, but there has been no release, hence the exceedingly low > quality > > of the Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu experience at the moment. > > > > OLPC fork version numbers are like 0.110.0.olpc.12 > > > > > Sugar Labs could focus on the JS Sugarizer codebase. > > > > Sugarizer isn't integrated into Sugar Labs; the repositories are > > split, cooperation is minimal, and the code for activities isn't > > portable to execution environments other than Sugarizer; such as > > sugar-web-activity. > > > > So I'm certainly not inclined to support any activity development on > > Sugarizer; because that development won't pay back for OLPC. > > > > I'm probably going to have to port the Moon activity from GTK+ 2 to > > GTK+ 3 unless someone can make the JavaScript version work on > desktop. > > ;-) I did get half way through. > > > > Zeeshan Khan also has the task for GsoC, so we might do it together. > > > > I'd like to hear from Ignacio, Sam Parkinson and Abhijit what they > > think of the port of Moon vs the JavaScript port; it may be simpler > to > > port the JavaScript version back to Sugar. > > > > Samuel Cantero wrote: > > > We should work to find out a new release manager [...] > > > > Ignacio is the release manager at the moment, but my guess is that > > he'd welcome someone else taking the job. Hopefully he'll speak up. > > > > Dave wrote: > > > Do those xo run the latest release? > > > > For mass deployment in Paraguay, they can run Sugar 0.110 plus all > bug > > fixes from OLPC by using our 13.2.8 as-is or by using it as basis of > > custom build. > > > > For individuals in Paraguay, they might run "yum update" to get > Sugar > > 0.110 plus fixes, unless there's some problem with clock, proxy, or > > yum.repos.d induced by environment of my bugs. > > > > Samuel Cantero wrote: > > > we're going to try to build a new ASLO in GSoC which must ease > > > activities management, for both image builders and developers. > > > > Please also consider Sugar Network, which Sebastian knows about, and > > is used heavily, judging by the hit counts on the Sugar Labs > servers. > > Laura recently asked asking Sugar Labs for assistance with Sugar > > Network and bringing a new deployment onto it may be helpful. > > > > German wrote: > > > At Dominican Republic, ~750 XO are running latest version of > Sugar. > > > > Good to get such positive feedback! ;-) > > > > -- > > James Cameron > > [4][7]http://quozl.netrek.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > > [5][8]IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > > [6][9]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > > > References: > > > > [1] mailto:[10]qu...@laptop.org > > [2] [11]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy > > [3] [12]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Glossary > > [4] [13]http://quozl.netrek.org/ > > [5] mailto:[14]IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > > [6] [15]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > -- > James Cameron > [16]http://quozl.netrek.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > [17]sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > [18]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > References: > > [1] https://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-$(rpm > [2] mailto:qu...@laptop.org > [3] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/13.2.7#Fedora_Repositories_Missing > [4] mailto:qu...@laptop.org > [5] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy > [6] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Glossary > [7] http://quozl.netrek.org/ > [8] mailto:IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > [9] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > [10] mailto:qu...@laptop.org > [11] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy > [12] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Glossary > [13] http://quozl.netrek.org/ > [14] mailto:IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > [15] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > [16] http://quozl.netrek.org/ > [17] mailto:sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > [18] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- James Cameron http://quozl.netrek.org/ _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep