Re: Arch Linux XO image and Sugar packages
Hello, I setup a buildbot instance to build the packages daily, using the XO as a build slave for arm http://sugarlabs.org:8011/waterfall https://github.com/dnarvaez/archbot You can pull them by adding this to your /etc/pacman.conf [sugar] SigLevel = Never Server = http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/archsugar/$arch I tested them on my laptop and on the XO. Though Arch Linux Arm supports a lot of devices, including the Raspberry PI http://archlinuxarm.org/platforms If you have any of these please give it a try, I'd be happy to try to fix stuff up if it doesn't work for some reason. (I have armv7 packages but not armv6 and armv5 yet, as you can see from the buildbot, hopefully I will figure out those soon). ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 7 October 2013 19:24, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: > > >- Updating the Sugar release in Ubuntu sounds like something everyone >could benefit from, not just Dextrose users. Is there any reason not to >base most of this work starting with upstream Sugar & existing Ubuntu >packages? > > +1 > >- In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no >longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be >developing their own version of Sugar. > > Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of change (and we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing list since a long long time, well before the github switch). ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 7 October 2013 18:41, David Farning wrote: > Would either of these list be appropriate to continue these > discussions about this downstream efforts to port sugar to Ubuntu for > use on hardware not sold by the Association? > > Phase one has been a poof of concept as seen at > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Ubuntu (ongoing) > Phase two will be opening the project to the community. > Phases three will be testing and piloting by deployments. I would like to understand better what you mean with porting. It should just be matter of writing package specs (or really fixing the existing ones...), no? If there is any more work involved strongly suggest you first discuss it on this mailing list, then have it done upstream directly. That way the whole community will benefit from your effort and you will benefit from the community input. Upstreaming after the fact rarely works. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On Monday, 7 October 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no longer > publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone seems to be > developing their own version of Sugar. > >> >> Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of change (and >> we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing list since a long >> long time, well before the github switch). >> >> > I think the change was the movement to github. > If we can add sugar-devel mailing list to the github mail destinations, > that can be solved. > I was mostly concerned about Samuel feeling that everyone is developing they're own version of Sugar. I don't see that or at least I don't see differences with the past. We probably can have sugar-devel as email destination... Though I'm not sure why people wouldn't just watch the modules they are interested in? It seems more flexible. Anyway not opposed to send all modules to the whole mailing list if there is consensus on that. -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron wrote: > I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches > participation in development has been confined to those who take the > trouble to visit a web site. > > (The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list). > > So on the theory that developers are developing with less review (even > though it might be unseen greater review), this leads to the > conclusion that Sugar is being developed by these developers "on their > own". > Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar" seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into it. There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing sugar on their own. As far as I know all the work that is being done these days is going upstream. > And, actually, I'm fine with that. A smaller group can achieve more > if they are able to use these new tools effectively. > > I have not been effective since that change, but you would have seen > that a review counter or tracking? I can't parse this question. > Has there been a measure of review > rate? > We usually have 1 reviewer per patch. All the patches that have been submitted so far has been reviewed and landed. > We probably can have sugar-devel as email destination... Though I'm > > not sure why people wouldn't just watch the modules they are > > interested in? It seems more flexible. Anyway not opposed to send > > all modules to the whole mailing list if there is consensus on > > that. > > I don't see how "watching the modules they are interested in" is "more > flexible", nor whether greater flexibility increases the > communication. > Because if we send patches to the mailing I'm pretty sure some people will be annoyed. In fact someone got annoyed when he was added to the reviewers group and started getting email. > Please don't configure github to send links to the patches; they have > to be the patches themselves. They should also have a from address > that matches the originator. > I highly doubt what you want is possible, at least without doing substantial work... If you have time feel free. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 8 October 2013 00:08, Manuel Quiñones wrote: > James, Sam, I see this as a question of taste. > Exactly. The sooner people understand that, the sooner we will stop having discussions about the review process over and over :) ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 8 October 2013 00:22, James Cameron wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > > Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar" > > seems to be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into > > it. > > > > There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing > > sugar on their own. As far as I know all the work that is being done > > these days is going upstream. > > Good. I only know of four Sugars. Sugar upstream, Dextrose, what is > in OLPC OS, and what is in the Australian builds. There might be > more, but I'm not aware of them. I also don't know the difference > between each. > Australia builds have apparently a few non-yet-upstreamed patches. Both Gonzalo and Walter are very much involved in upstream work, I'm absolutely confident they will upstream as soon as it make sense. OLPC OS is pretty much all upstream, as far as I know. Dextrose. I know they accumulated non-upstream patches in the past. We landed a couple of features coming from there before the freeze. I'm not sure what is going on these days, which is why I wanted to know more from David about the "porting" they are doing. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 8 October 2013 01:07, Samuel Greenfeld wrote: > This actually is kind of what I meant (and perhaps should be a separate > thread). > To simplify things I will only answer about the 0.100 release cycle. Things have changed a lot anyway and it's probably not worth focusing on the past. > My understanding is that deployments nowadays are the primary parties > funding Sugar development. And the deployments or their contractors > sometimes duplicate work, run into debates upstreaming things, and/or may > choose to keep some things semi-private to differentiate their products. > There has been debate only about one set of patches which was too big and complicated to review. Someone took care of splitting it up in the end though and it landed. I'm not aware of duplicate work. I'm not aware of semi-private things used to differentiate products. > So apart from major functionality like HTML5 activities, a lot of > peripheral development is happening downstream-first. And when we do try > to do major cross-group development like the GTK3 port, this has lead to > finger-pointing behind the scenes where it is claimed others are not doing > what they promised. > I don't think a lot of development is happening downstream. I have to admit I don't have much visibility about Dextrose/Activity Central though. I think it's fine for some development to land downstream first, as long as it is discussed openly from the beginning. It's often a good way to try things out... > To the best of my knowledge no single organization currently employs > enough developers and/or contractors to keep Sugar development alive. I am > not certain what the best approach to take is when this is the case. > I'm more concerned that even summing up the resources, there might not be enough to keep development alive. It really worried me that very little testing, bug triaging and bug fixing is happening for 0.100. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 8 October 2013 01:45, Ruben RodrÃguez wrote: > Also, there are some bits of code in both Sugar and the activities > that assume to be running on Fedora, or even on an XO, and those need > cleaning. Please fix those bits directly upstream! I have not seen any patch related to this effort yet. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Android on the XO-4
Is the goal just to run Android on the XO or this related to Sugar and the HTML 5 effort? On Wednesday, 9 October 2013, Sameer Verma wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Walter Bender > > > wrote: > > Not sure this helps us get around the Marvel bottleneck, but worth > > investigating. > > > > -walter > > > > Thx. I've heard about this bottleneck but not sure what it is. Can you > tell us a bit about what it is, or point to it? > > Sameer > > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Sameer Verma > > wrote: > >> I was at the Internet Archive for some work on Pathagar > >> (https://github.com/PathagarBooks/pathagar). Also there that afternoon > >> was John Gilmore (cc'd). We got to talking about the XO-4, Android, > >> HTML5, etc. A bit of doodling on Physics, and John put together a two > >> cylinder engine, complete with a rocker arm :-) He also suggested the > >> possibility of CyanogenMod on the XO-4 as a starting point. > >> > >> If there is any interest in this, please submit a proposal for the > >> upcoming OLPC SF summit > >> http://www.olpcsf.org/CommunitySummit2013/proposal > >> > >> John, > >> > >> If you are in town Oct 18-20, we'd love to have you there. > >> http://olpcsf.org/summit > >> > >> cheers, > >> Sameer > >> -- > >> Sameer Verma, Ph.D. > >> Professor, Information Systems > >> San Francisco State University > >> http://verma.sfsu.edu/ > >> http://commons.sfsu.edu/ > >> http://olpcsf.org/ > >> http://olpcjamaica.org.jm/ > >> ___ > >> Devel mailing list > >> Devel@lists.laptop.org > >> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > > > > > > > > -- > > Walter Bender > > Sugar Labs > > http://www.sugarlabs.org > > > > > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 9 October 2013 22:51, NoiseEHC wrote: > Now I will not give you constructive criticism as that would allow > answering that "I should not tell others what to do" and it would be > getting old... Instead here is some nonconstructive criticism: > I don't know if it's constructive or not, but I'd say it's certainly useful. You are identifying the major limitations of the current sugar-web framework. Just some notes about them. 1 Inability to do OAuth This has been discussed for Firefox OS too and as far as I know there is no good solution for it yet. I won't claim to understand all the security implications, tough the basic issue seems to run content from the web inside an higher privileged application. In our case it's worst because we don't support hosted web applications at all. 2 Journal This is probably the issue we have been most aware of. I've been thinking in the per activity datastore direction too and I think it's probably the best one. Though as you say that involves UI redesign and we would need to figure out compatibility with existing activities. (Please share the webkit code, I don't know if I'll have time to hack on it but I did think to write something like that at some point, it would be interesting to look at it if nothing else). 3 Collaboration One of the reasons we haven't tackled it yet is that we think something like what you proposed might be a better solution than trying to wrap the current native framework (which is also known to be very unreliable). So as I see you either create a framework which mimics Sugar and no web > developer will use it or create a framework which implements what a web > developer is already using or at least tries to somehow emulate it. So the > web developer does not have to modify his/her code and will consider > porting his/her application for a smaller platform. > We probably all agree that it would be awesome to have something that integrates well with Sugar and works transparently by reusing existing web technologies. I don't think that's easy to achieve though. It has been said in previous discussions that without the close integration between activities and system, Sugar would be just yet another suite of educational applications (and likely not the best of them). I very much agree and I think it's tricky to preserve that while moving to frameworks which are supposed to work everywhere. We could have started with something more web developer friendly and incrementally integrated it into the native Sugar platform, for example by redesigning the Journal in the way you described, and somehow adapting native activities to the new design. Instead we went for something targeted at the current Sugar developers with the idea of making it incrementally more web friendly. I have been on the fence on what was the best approach and I still am. Something to consider is that we barely have the resources to maintain the existing native code. I doubt, for example, that we would be able to ship a redesigned Journal. Consider also that the people most involved with this work has all a good knowledge of the Sugar platform but are not really web developers. Just my $0.02. Manuel might want to post his perspective too. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 10 October 2013 00:22, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > 1 Inability to do OAuth > > This has been discussed for Firefox OS too and as far as I know there is > no good solution for it yet. I won't claim to understand all the security > implications, tough the basic issue seems to run content from the web > inside an higher privileged application. In our case it's worst because we > don't support hosted web applications at all. > I don't fully understand the problems involved yet but mozilla seems to have a found a solution to this https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=852720 We do have a stable origin already given by the app:// protocol we are using. Though I'm not sure that's the only requirement (the discussion on the bug report is long and a bit confusing). ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
On 23 October 2013 19:51, Walter Bender wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, David Farning > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Walter Bender > wrote: > > [snip] > > >> I don't understand what you are asking. Sugar Labs has always had a > >> policy of working in the open. > > > > The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental > > disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs > > thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to the > > changing environment. > > > > Not a clue as to what you are talking about. How about some > transparency as to what our disagreement is? > > [snip] > Yes, please. I don't really understand where you are seeing lack of openness and transparency. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
On 29 October 2013 01:14, David Farning wrote: > As two Data points: > In a private conversation with an Association employee they told me > that they conciser Activity Central a competitor because Activity > Central increased deployments expectations. Their strategy with regard > to Activity Central was to _not_ accept patches upstream with the goal > of causing Activity Central and Dextrose to collapse under its their > weight. As it was private conversation I am not sure how widely spread > the opinion was held. > The patch queue is currently empty. In the last six months only one patchset was rejected. It was by Activity Central and it was rejected by me (not an OLPC employee) for purely technical reasons. The proof being that the same patchset landed after being cleaned up and resubmitted properly by another Activity Central developer. More in general, no single developer is in charge of patch reviewing, OLPC couldn't keep code out of the tree for non-technical reason even if they wanted to. More specifically the ability to approve patches was offered to one Activity Central developer, which never used it. Recently there was a call for help testing HTML5 and JS. Two > developers Code and Roger have been writing proof of concept > activities. They have been receiving extensive off-list help getting > started. But, interestingly, their on-list request for clarification > about how to test datastore was met with silence. > Mailing list posts going unanswered isn't really uncommon in free software projects. But most of the time it just means that no one knows the answer or everyone is too busy. Only me and Manuel are usually answering about HTML5. I have not answered because... gmail put those messages in my spam folder, sigh! Most likely the same happened to Manuel or he has been busy. (I need to take some sleep now but I'll try to answer asap). ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
Sounds great to me! On Tuesday, 29 October 2013, David Farning wrote: > I would like to thank everyone who has provided valuable feedback by > participating on this thread. > > The three things I am going to takeway from the the thread are: > 1. Jame's point about my position about not representing the median. > Due to my history and role in the ecosystem, I have upset some > apple-carts :( > 2. Martin's point about the right hand not always being aware of what > the left hand is doing. This unfortunately seems to happen too > frequently. > 3. Finally, and most importantly, Daniel's point about getting back > to the business of improving Sugar. > > My proposal is that Activity Central make the next step of funding two > developers to work on HTML5 and JS. If we can find a mutually > beneficial relationship around this, we can see how we can expand the > relationship in the future. > > Seem reasonable? > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez > > > wrote: > > On 29 October 2013 01:14, David Farning > > > > > > wrote: > >> > >> As two Data points: > >> In a private conversation with an Association employee they told me > >> that they conciser Activity Central a competitor because Activity > >> Central increased deployments expectations. Their strategy with regard > >> to Activity Central was to _not_ accept patches upstream with the goal > >> of causing Activity Central and Dextrose to collapse under its their > >> weight. As it was private conversation I am not sure how widely spread > >> the opinion was held. > > > > > > The patch queue is currently empty. In the last six months only one > patchset > > was rejected. It was by Activity Central and it was rejected by me (not > an > > OLPC employee) for purely technical reasons. The proof being that the > same > > patchset landed after being cleaned up and resubmitted properly by > another > > Activity Central developer. > > > > More in general, no single developer is in charge of patch reviewing, > OLPC > > couldn't keep code out of the tree for non-technical reason even if they > > wanted to. More specifically the ability to approve patches was offered > to > > one Activity Central developer, which never used it. > > > >> Recently there was a call for help testing HTML5 and JS. Two > >> developers Code and Roger have been writing proof of concept > >> activities. They have been receiving extensive off-list help getting > >> started. But, interestingly, their on-list request for clarification > >> about how to test datastore was met with silence. > > > > > > Mailing list posts going unanswered isn't really uncommon in free > software > > projects. But most of the time it just means that no one knows the > answer or > > everyone is too busy. > > > > Only me and Manuel are usually answering about HTML5. I have not answered > > because... gmail put those messages in my spam folder, sigh! Most likely > the > > same happened to Manuel or he has been busy. (I need to take some sleep > now > > but I'll try to answer asap). > > > > -- > David Farning > Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Sugar 0.100.0 (stable)
Hello, we are proud to announce the release of Sugar 0.100.0. A lot is new for both users and developers, see the release notes http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.100/Notes Sources: http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-datastore/sugar-datastore-0.100.0.tar.xz http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-artwork/sugar-artwork-0.100.0.tar.xz http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-runner/sugar-runner-0.100.0.tar.xz http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar/sugar-0.100.1.tar.xz http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-toolkit-gtk3/sugar-toolkit-gtk3-0.100.0.tar.xz Thanks to everyone that contributed with code, translations and testing! -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
On 29 October 2013 20:29, David Farning wrote: > Phase two -- Let's look at lessons learned from other projects. We can > focus on the road map and product specification. From my experience, > these two piece can provide an anchor for the rest of the project: > 1. The act of sitting down and hashing out the roadmap and project > specification causes everyone to sit back and assess their individual > priorities and goals and how they fit into the project as a whole. > 2. The act of deciding which items are above the line and which are > below the line, which are targeted for this release and which are > pushed to a future release, help find the balance between what is > possible some day and what is probable in X months of work with > existing resources. > 3. Sitting back and preparing for a release forces us to asses what is > good enough for release what is not. It is a good feedback loop. > 4. Finally, after a successful release everyone can sit back bask is > the satisfaction that maybe we didn't save the world... but we make > enough progress that it is worth getting up again tomorrow and doing > it all again. > Hi David, I just started a thread about 0.102 focus and features. If you want to get involved defining the upstream roadmap there is your chance! For 0.100 we kept that very very simple, a short list of new features basically. But if you want to contribute with a product specification I think that would be awesome. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
On 31 October 2013 19:31, Walter Bender wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Sameer Verma wrote: > > > Here's OLPC's mission, as a reminder: > > > > Mission Statement: To create educational opportunities for the world's > > poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, > > low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for > > collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning. > > > > I think we all share concerns about the future of OLPCA (Indeed, I > left OLPC in 2008 to start Sugar Labs in part because of my concerns > about strategy and pedagogy.) That said, I continue to work in support > of OLPC's efforts since I believe that they are still a viable vehicle > to reach millions of children. But Sugar Labs is not OLPC. And Sugar > Labs has a future independent of OLPC. In 2008 we made a decision as a > community to be agnostic about hardware to the extent possible and > that is reflected in our code. In 2010, we made the decision to make > HTML5/Javascript a first-class development environment for Sugar with > the goals of both reaching more kids and attracting more developers. > This is work in progress, but we (Manuq and Daniel) have made great > strides. We face further challenges ahead. But our mission remains: > > to produce, distribute, and support the use of the Sugar learning > platform; it is a support base and gathering place for the community > of educators and developers to create, extend, teach, and learn with > the Sugar learning platform. Both being hardware agnostic and OS agnostic make sense at a certain level. But I feel like Sugar Labs needs one or more well defined flagship products to focus on. That gives us something to market, to test, to design for. The only Sugar based product which has really been successful until now is the XO. And that makes us still very dependent on OLPC strategies. Given the uncertainity of the OLPC situation (or rather it seems pretty certain that their investement on Sugar has been heavily scaled down), I think Sugar Labs should try to come up with another flagship product to focus on. Sugar on Raspberry? Sugar as a cross OS application? Sugar on some custom built (by who?) piece of hardware? I don't know but I feel it's something we will need to figure out. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
On 1 November 2013 03:22, Walter Bender wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Daniel Narvaez > wrote: > > On 31 October 2013 19:31, Walter Bender wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Sameer Verma wrote: > >> > >> > Here's OLPC's mission, as a reminder: > >> > > >> > Mission Statement: To create educational opportunities for the world's > >> > poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, > >> > low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for > >> > collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning. > >> > > >> > >> I think we all share concerns about the future of OLPCA (Indeed, I > >> left OLPC in 2008 to start Sugar Labs in part because of my concerns > >> about strategy and pedagogy.) That said, I continue to work in support > >> of OLPC's efforts since I believe that they are still a viable vehicle > >> to reach millions of children. But Sugar Labs is not OLPC. And Sugar > >> Labs has a future independent of OLPC. In 2008 we made a decision as a > >> community to be agnostic about hardware to the extent possible and > >> that is reflected in our code. In 2010, we made the decision to make > >> HTML5/Javascript a first-class development environment for Sugar with > >> the goals of both reaching more kids and attracting more developers. > >> This is work in progress, but we (Manuq and Daniel) have made great > >> strides. We face further challenges ahead. But our mission remains: > >> > >> to produce, distribute, and support the use of the Sugar learning > >> platform; it is a support base and gathering place for the community > >> of educators and developers to create, extend, teach, and learn with > >> the Sugar learning platform. > > > > > > > > Both being hardware agnostic and OS agnostic make sense at a certain > level. > > But I feel like Sugar Labs needs one or more well defined flagship > products > > to focus on. That gives us something to market, to test, to design for. > > > > The only Sugar based product which has really been successful until now > is > > the XO. And that makes us still very dependent on OLPC strategies. > > > > Given the uncertainity of the OLPC situation (or rather it seems pretty > > certain that their investement on Sugar has been heavily scaled down), I > > think Sugar Labs should try to come up with another flagship product to > > focus on. Sugar on Raspberry? Sugar as a cross OS application? Sugar on > some > > custom built (by who?) piece of hardware? I don't know but I feel it's > > something we will need to figure out. > > I think we should be having this discussion with the Sugar > deployments. They by-and-large remain committed to Sugar even if they > are uncertain about the base platform. > Absolutely! ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
On 1 November 2013 21:59, James Cameron wrote: > Use this phase of the process as an opportunity for you and your > people to practice communicating with other developers in the > community; and measure the effort in the design process, not the > achievements. > > +1 > > In the first couple of weeks, I expect that this will mostly involve > > creating web activities to build familiarity the the technologies > > and API's. The return value to Sugar Labs will be testing and > > feedback about the current web activities framework. > > I'm worried that it is quite late in the life of the web activities > framework for this feedback, but better late than never. > I think we are still veary ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Private vs Public conversations.
On 1 November 2013 22:09, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > On 1 November 2013 21:59, James Cameron wrote: > >> Use this phase of the process as an opportunity for you and your >> people to practice communicating with other developers in the >> community; and measure the effort in the design process, not the >> achievements. >> >> > +1 > > >> > In the first couple of weeks, I expect that this will mostly involve >> > creating web activities to build familiarity the the technologies >> > and API's. The return value to Sugar Labs will be testing and >> > feedback about the current web activities framework. >> >> I'm worried that it is quite late in the life of the web activities >> framework for this feedback, but better late than never. >> > > I think we are still veary > Sorry, keyboard acting up. I think we are still very early in the life of the web activities framework. I can't think of a single API that we could consider set in stones. -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100.0 (stable)
I don't have much of a clue about Write but... can you send the activity log? On 4 November 2013 16:14, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Daniel Narvaez > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > we are proud to announce the release of Sugar 0.100.0. A lot is new for > both > > users and developers, see the release notes > > > > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.100/Notes > > > > Sources: > > > > > http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-datastore/sugar-datastore-0.100.0.tar.xz > > > http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-artwork/sugar-artwork-0.100.0.tar.xz > > > http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-runner/sugar-runner-0.100.0.tar.xz > > > http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar/sugar-0.100.1.tar.xz > > > http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-toolkit-gtk3/sugar-toolkit-gtk3-0.100.0.tar.xz > > > > Thanks to everyone that contributed with code, translations and testing! > > These are now in updates-testing in Fedora 20. They're not yet in the > Fedora 20 stable channel because they're locked down for Beta but will > land in stable shortly after Beta. It would be good to get some wider > testing and feedback. The big issue at the moment is Write failing to > run and I would love some assistance in debugging and fixing that soon > so we can ship it in SoaS 10. > > The latest Beta RC2 images can be found here: > > x86 (32 and 64 bit) > http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/20-Beta-RC2/Live/ > ARM http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/20-Beta-RC2/Images/armhfp/ > > Peter > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100.0 (stable)
That's a segmentation fault I think. It would be good if you could launch
it with sugar-launch -d and post the backtrace., possibly after having
installed debug packages.
On 4 November 2013 21:25, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Daniel Narvaez
> wrote:
> > I don't have much of a clue about Write but... can you send the activity
> > log?
>
> It unfortunately only contains a single line:
>
> Terminated by signal 11, pid 14089 data (None, ',
> mode 'w' at 0x2e13540>,
> dbus.ByteArray('ef47d2e4dc6551ba96f6ceded9023243ea4ee519
> ', variant_level=1))
>
>
> > On 4 November 2013 16:14, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Daniel Narvaez
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > we are proud to announce the release of Sugar 0.100.0. A lot is new
> for
> >> > both
> >> > users and developers, see the release notes
> >> >
> >> > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.100/Notes
> >> >
> >> > Sources:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-datastore/sugar-datastore-0.100.0.tar.xz
> >> >
> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-artwork/sugar-artwork-0.100.0.tar.xz
> >> >
> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-runner/sugar-runner-0.100.0.tar.xz
> >> >
> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar/sugar-0.100.1.tar.xz
> >> >
> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-toolkit-gtk3/sugar-toolkit-gtk3-0.100.0.tar.xz
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to everyone that contributed with code, translations and
> testing!
> >>
> >> These are now in updates-testing in Fedora 20. They're not yet in the
> >> Fedora 20 stable channel because they're locked down for Beta but will
> >> land in stable shortly after Beta. It would be good to get some wider
> >> testing and feedback. The big issue at the moment is Write failing to
> >> run and I would love some assistance in debugging and fixing that soon
> >> so we can ship it in SoaS 10.
> >>
> >> The latest Beta RC2 images can be found here:
> >>
> >> x86 (32 and 64 bit)
> >> http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/20-Beta-RC2/Live/
> >> ARM
> http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/20-Beta-RC2/Images/armhfp/
> >>
> >> Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Narvaez
>
--
Daniel Narvaez
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100.0 (stable)
Broken annotation in abiword. Trying to figure out the correct one then
I'll open a bug + patch.
On 4 November 2013 22:40, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Narvaez
> wrote:
> > That's a segmentation fault I think. It would be good if you could
> launch it
> > with sugar-launch -d and post the backtrace., possibly after having
> > installed debug packages.
>
> 2Gb of debuginfo later I have the following:
>
> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/51575/38360107/
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
> > On 4 November 2013 21:25, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Daniel Narvaez
> >> wrote:
> >> > I don't have much of a clue about Write but... can you send the
> activity
> >> > log?
> >>
> >> It unfortunately only contains a single line:
> >>
> >> Terminated by signal 11, pid 14089 data (None, ',
> >> mode 'w' at 0x2e13540>,
> >> dbus.ByteArray('ef47d2e4dc6551ba96f6ceded9023243ea4ee519
> >> ', variant_level=1))
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 4 November 2013 16:14, Peter Robinson
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Daniel Narvaez >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > we are proud to announce the release of Sugar 0.100.0. A lot is new
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > both
> >> >> > users and developers, see the release notes
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.100/Notes
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sources:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-datastore/sugar-datastore-0.100.0.tar.xz
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-artwork/sugar-artwork-0.100.0.tar.xz
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-runner/sugar-runner-0.100.0.tar.xz
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar/sugar-0.100.1.tar.xz
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/sucrose/glucose/sugar-toolkit-gtk3/sugar-toolkit-gtk3-0.100.0.tar.xz
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks to everyone that contributed with code, translations and
> >> >> > testing!
> >> >>
> >> >> These are now in updates-testing in Fedora 20. They're not yet in the
> >> >> Fedora 20 stable channel because they're locked down for Beta but
> will
> >> >> land in stable shortly after Beta. It would be good to get some wider
> >> >> testing and feedback. The big issue at the moment is Write failing to
> >> >> run and I would love some assistance in debugging and fixing that
> soon
> >> >> so we can ship it in SoaS 10.
> >> >>
> >> >> The latest Beta RC2 images can be found here:
> >> >>
> >> >> x86 (32 and 64 bit)
> >> >> http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/20-Beta-RC2/Live/
> >> >> ARM
> >> >>
> http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/20-Beta-RC2/Images/armhfp/
> >> >>
> >> >> Peter
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Daniel Narvaez
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Narvaez
>
--
Daniel Narvaez
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100.0 (stable)
On 5 November 2013 00:07, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Daniel Narvaez > wrote: > > Broken annotation in abiword. Trying to figure out the correct one then > I'll > > open a bug + patch. > > Thanks! Let me know when you've got a patch and I'll test it. > > Here it is http://bugzilla.abisource.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13572 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100.0 (stable)
On 5 November 2013 00:13, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > On 5 November 2013 00:07, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Daniel Narvaez >> wrote: >> > Broken annotation in abiword. Trying to figure out the correct one then >> I'll >> > open a bug + patch. >> >> Thanks! Let me know when you've got a patch and I'll test it. >> >> > Here it is > > http://bugzilla.abisource.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13572 > I suspect this was worked around in OLPC rpms btw http://bugzilla.abisource.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13420#c4 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.100.0 (stable)
:) On 5 November 2013 00:23, Chris Leonard wrote: > I poked my abiword friends, expect the commit shortly. > > cjl > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Daniel Narvaez > wrote: > > On 5 November 2013 00:07, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Daniel Narvaez > >> wrote: > >> > Broken annotation in abiword. Trying to figure out the correct one > then > >> > I'll > >> > open a bug + patch. > >> > >> Thanks! Let me know when you've got a patch and I'll test it. > >> > > > > Here it is > > > > http://bugzilla.abisource.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13572 > > > > ___ > > Devel mailing list > > Devel@lists.laptop.org > > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > > > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
On 22 October 2013 21:41, NoiseEHC wrote: > You are right. The problem is that my views are exactly the opposite of > the decided path to take. > I don't think that's true. I'm one of the three developers involved in the web activities work and I like many of your ideas. Manuel in his reply appeared to be interested too. I have the feeling that if you look into it some more you might see the paths are not that different. But even if you really think we got it all wrong , I'd say we have been mostly researching so far... there is certainly space to fix the direction. Please get involved. Post your thoughts (constructive or not) when we discuss topics we have been researching (I'd say we did that for any non trivial topic so far). Make proposals, send patches. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: XO Problems (4 Problems)
As far as I know these are based on the latest OLPC builds (and kernel). Only the sugar packages are updated, see the wiki page Walter linked. Gonzalo just linked the XO4 build linked from Walter's page. On Monday, 25 November 2013, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > A related question. I'll try to phrase this delicately -- what's the > relationship between Walter's "Sugar 100" build and the latest OLPC > kernel? Can I safely assume that SugarLabs is the current keeper of > the flame and has all the latest hardware-support bits (I hope so!). > Gonzalo pointed me to a different build. Can someone explain the > different sources of bits and development to me? > --scott > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Rhel
oob = ? :) On 18 December 2013 16:55, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > oob works with F18, then I don't know why would have missing > dependencies... > > Gonzalo > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Kevin Gordon Gmail >> wrote: >> > >> > I have a lead on someone to help in testing and building. However, he's >> an >> > rhel dude. >> > >> > Does anyone have experience in doing oob, and/or loading sugar on this >> o/s? >> > If so, any hints, pitfalls, or should the usual yum installs be happy? >> > >> > Supposedly the release of rhel he's using now is public beta of v7 and >> based >> > on fc19, kernel 3.1, which might or might not be problematic. >> >> kernel is 3.10 and the process should mostly be the same as Fedora but >> it's likely that it won't actually have all the needed dependencies. >> If he's a "RHEL dude" he should be able to get his head around using >> Fedora given RHEL-7 beta is derived from Fedora 19. >> >> Peter >> ___ >> 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 > > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [Sugar-devel] [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good > > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. > > If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something > more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right > now, but it would be helpful to the users. > > Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO 1.5 https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder I don't have hardware to test that though... I'm now trying to build for 1.75 which is harder but I can actually test. I need to rebuild the X driver but I think that will require some patching, let's see if I can get it to work... ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
As an update, I have patched xorg-x11-drv-dove and built rpms for it http://shell.sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/f20-xo1.75/ Now building an image with those. On 7 May 2014 15:18, Martin Abente wrote: > Great! > > I will try your oob branch for 1.5, I do have XOs 1.5 for testing :) > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good >>> > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. >>> >>> If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something >>> more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right >>> now, but it would be helpful to the users. >>> >>> Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) >> >> >> I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO 1.5 >> >> https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder >> >> I don't have hardware to test that though... I'm now trying to build for >> 1.75 which is harder but I can actually test. I need to rebuild the X >> driver but I think that will require some patching, let's see if I can get >> it to work... >> >> ___ >> Devel mailing list >> Devel@lists.laptop.org >> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >> >> > > ___ > Sugar-devel mailing list > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
It would be good to start the kernel with systemd.unit=multi-user.target so that (hopefully) we just get a console instead of dcon freezing/X startup... I'm not sure how to easily pass kernel arguments on the XO though. Does anyone know? On 8 May 2014 18:55, Martin Abente wrote: > Hello Daniel, > > I built the image for XO 1.5 but it freezes during boot. > > It reaches to the stage: > > Starting Wait for Wait for Plymouth Boot Screen to Quit... > > > Right after that I see these two messages: > > > dcon_freeze_store: 1 > dcon_source_switch to DCON > > > Then the screen slowly and gradually turns gray. > > Any idea what this could be? Any suggestion for debugging it? > > Regards, > Martin. > > > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > >> These are fantastic news! >> Thanks Daniel for working on this >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >> >>> As an update, I have patched xorg-x11-drv-dove and built rpms for it >>> >>> http://shell.sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/f20-xo1.75/ >>> >>> Now building an image with those. >>> >>> >>> On 7 May 2014 15:18, Martin Abente wrote: >>> >>>> Great! >>>> >>>> I will try your oob branch for 1.5, I do have XOs 1.5 for testing :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good >>>>>> > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something >>>>>> more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right >>>>>> now, but it would be helpful to the users. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO 1.5 >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder >>>>> >>>>> I don't have hardware to test that though... I'm now trying to build >>>>> for 1.75 which is harder but I can actually test. I need to rebuild the X >>>>> driver but I think that will require some patching, let's see if I can get >>>>> it to work... >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> Devel mailing list >>>>> Devel@lists.laptop.org >>>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Narvaez >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gonzalo Odiard >> >> SugarLabs - Software for children learning >> > > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
I built an image for 1.75 http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ I've not been able to test yet. I don't have my usual usb stick with me and having troubles finding something the XO likes. On 8 May 2014 02:04, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > As an update, I have patched xorg-x11-drv-dove and built rpms for it > > http://shell.sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/f20-xo1.75/ > > Now building an image with those. > > > On 7 May 2014 15:18, Martin Abente wrote: > >> Great! >> >> I will try your oob branch for 1.5, I do have XOs 1.5 for testing :) >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >> >>> On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good >>>> > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. >>>> >>>> If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something >>>> more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right >>>> now, but it would be helpful to the users. >>>> >>>> Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) >>> >>> >>> I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO 1.5 >>> >>> https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder >>> >>> I don't have hardware to test that though... I'm now trying to build for >>> 1.75 which is harder but I can actually test. I need to rebuild the X >>> driver but I think that will require some patching, let's see if I can get >>> it to work... >>> >>> _______ >>> Devel mailing list >>> Devel@lists.laptop.org >>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >>> >>> >> >> ___ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
On 9 May 2014 14:24, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Daniel Narvaez > wrote: > > On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good > >> > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. > >> > >> If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something > >> more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right > >> now, but it would be helpful to the users. > >> > >> Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) > > > > > > I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO 1.5 > > > > https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder > > olpc-os-builder git master also has F20 support, as of a few months > ago. Can't remember how good the result was. > Does the 3.10 kernel which is used there have olpc patches applied? ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
On 9 May 2014 15:50, Peter Robinson wrote: > >>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >>> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good > >>> > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. > >>> > >>> If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something > >>> more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right > >>> now, but it would be helpful to the users. > >>> > >>> Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) > >> > >> > >> I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO 1.5 > >> > >> https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder > > > > olpc-os-builder git master also has F20 support, as of a few months > > ago. Can't remember how good the result was. > > I suspect wifi and anything that needed firmware will fail to work > because of changes in the firmware loading interface needs newer > kernels (3.4 is too old for example) > Is this the change you are referring to https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/arm/2013-June/006116.html Rebuilding systemd wouldn't be too bad if it solves it... Support of the XOs in Fedora upstream is something I've been asked > about a number of times of late by varying different people. That would be awesome of course. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
I built a xo4 image, which like 1.75 boots fine into sugar http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/xo4/ The main problem, as discussed, is that firmwares are not loaded. I'm building a systemd rpm with firmware loading enabled. If we can get wifi working then it should be easier to play with stuff, building in the virtual machine takes really too long. On 9 May 2014 14:13, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > I built an image for 1.75 > > http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ > > I've not been able to test yet. I don't have my usual usb stick with me > and having troubles finding something the XO likes. > > > On 8 May 2014 02:04, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> As an update, I have patched xorg-x11-drv-dove and built rpms for it >> >> http://shell.sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/f20-xo1.75/ >> >> Now building an image with those. >> >> >> On 7 May 2014 15:18, Martin Abente wrote: >> >>> Great! >>> >>> I will try your oob branch for 1.5, I do have XOs 1.5 for testing :) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>> >>>> On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good >>>>> > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. >>>>> >>>>> If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something >>>>> more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right >>>>> now, but it would be helpful to the users. >>>>> >>>>> Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO 1.5 >>>> >>>> https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder >>>> >>>> I don't have hardware to test that though... I'm now trying to build >>>> for 1.75 which is harder but I can actually test. I need to rebuild the X >>>> driver but I think that will require some patching, let's see if I can get >>>> it to work... >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> Devel mailing list >>>> Devel@lists.laptop.org >>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Narvaez >> > > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
By the way, I suspect the issue with small icons is something we already fixed in 0.101. As soon as we have the base system working decently I'm planning to make builds with latest sugar from git. On 10 May 2014 01:22, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > I built a xo4 image, which like 1.75 boots fine into sugar > > http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/xo4/ > > The main problem, as discussed, is that firmwares are not loaded. I'm > building a systemd rpm with firmware loading enabled. If we can get wifi > working then it should be easier to play with stuff, building in the > virtual machine takes really too long. > > > On 9 May 2014 14:13, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> I built an image for 1.75 >> >> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ >> >> I've not been able to test yet. I don't have my usual usb stick with me >> and having troubles finding something the XO likes. >> >> >> On 8 May 2014 02:04, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >> >>> As an update, I have patched xorg-x11-drv-dove and built rpms for it >>> >>> http://shell.sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/f20-xo1.75/ >>> >>> Now building an image with those. >>> >>> >>> On 7 May 2014 15:18, Martin Abente wrote: >>> >>>> Great! >>>> >>>> I will try your oob branch for 1.5, I do have XOs 1.5 for testing :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good >>>>>> > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something >>>>>> more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right >>>>>> now, but it would be helpful to the users. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO 1.5 >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder >>>>> >>>>> I don't have hardware to test that though... I'm now trying to build >>>>> for 1.75 which is harder but I can actually test. I need to rebuild the X >>>>> driver but I think that will require some patching, let's see if I can get >>>>> it to work... >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> Devel mailing list >>>>> Devel@lists.laptop.org >>>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Narvaez >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Narvaez >> > > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
Firmware loading works with the rebuilt systemd! I have not tested much but wifi works now. Next step, build images with latest sugar... On 10 May 2014 01:22, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > I built a xo4 image, which like 1.75 boots fine into sugar > > http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/xo4/ > > The main problem, as discussed, is that firmwares are not loaded. I'm > building a systemd rpm with firmware loading enabled. If we can get wifi > working then it should be easier to play with stuff, building in the > virtual machine takes really too long. > > > On 9 May 2014 14:13, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> I built an image for 1.75 >> >> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ >> >> I've not been able to test yet. I don't have my usual usb stick with me >> and having troubles finding something the XO likes. >> >> >> On 8 May 2014 02:04, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >> >>> As an update, I have patched xorg-x11-drv-dove and built rpms for it >>> >>> http://shell.sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/f20-xo1.75/ >>> >>> Now building an image with those. >>> >>> >>> On 7 May 2014 15:18, Martin Abente wrote: >>> >>>> Great! >>>> >>>> I will try your oob branch for 1.5, I do have XOs 1.5 for testing :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good >>>>>> > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something >>>>>> more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right >>>>>> now, but it would be helpful to the users. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO 1.5 >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder >>>>> >>>>> I don't have hardware to test that though... I'm now trying to build >>>>> for 1.75 which is harder but I can actually test. I need to rebuild the X >>>>> driver but I think that will require some patching, let's see if I can get >>>>> it to work... >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> Devel mailing list >>>>> Devel@lists.laptop.org >>>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Narvaez >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Narvaez >> > > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
I made builds for xo1 and xo1.5 with the firmware change http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ The xo1 boots into sugar but there are no activities installed (I probably got something wrong in the ini). Testing on the xo1.5 one would be welcome, I'm curious if firmware solves the startup freeze. On 11 May 2014 00:24, Martin Abente wrote: > great!! Let me know when you have an image with this! > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> Firmware loading works with the rebuilt systemd! I have not tested much >> but wifi works now. Next step, build images with latest sugar... >> >> >> On 10 May 2014 01:22, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >> >>> I built a xo4 image, which like 1.75 boots fine into sugar >>> >>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/xo4/ >>> >>> The main problem, as discussed, is that firmwares are not loaded. I'm >>> building a systemd rpm with firmware loading enabled. If we can get wifi >>> working then it should be easier to play with stuff, building in the >>> virtual machine takes really too long. >>> >>> >>> On 9 May 2014 14:13, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>> >>>> I built an image for 1.75 >>>> >>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ >>>> >>>> I've not been able to test yet. I don't have my usual usb stick with me >>>> and having troubles finding something the XO likes. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 May 2014 02:04, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> >>>>> As an update, I have patched xorg-x11-drv-dove and built rpms for it >>>>> >>>>> http://shell.sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/f20-xo1.75/ >>>>> >>>>> Now building an image with those. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7 May 2014 15:18, Martin Abente wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Great! >>>>>> >>>>>> I will try your oob branch for 1.5, I do have XOs 1.5 for testing :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>>>> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedora 18 we might not have good >>>>>>>> > enough introspection to make the port compatible with it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If anybody would like to work on moving olpc-os-builder to something >>>>>>>> more recent, feel free. It isn't something OLPC is looking at right >>>>>>>> now, but it would be helpful to the users. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not the die hard 0.98 users, of course. ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm giving that a try. I was able to build a Fedora 20 image for XO >>>>>>> 1.5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't have hardware to test that though... I'm now trying to build >>>>>>> for 1.75 which is harder but I can actually test. I need to rebuild the >>>>>>> X >>>>>>> driver but I think that will require some patching, let's see if I can >>>>>>> get >>>>>>> it to work... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ___ >>>>>>> Devel mailing list >>>>>>> Devel@lists.laptop.org >>>>>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ___ >>>>>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>>>>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Daniel Narvaez >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Narvaez >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Narvaez >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Narvaez >> > > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
This could be a change I made. I will investigate and let you know. On 11 May 2014 20:31, Martin Abente wrote: > Hey Daniel, > > Could you check if this is correct? > > $md5sum 10001xx1.zd > $0cc8f3f71d636c8dc4464ffb8bf1847b 10001xx1.zd > > > Tested with 2 different XOs 1.5 and I am getting kernel panic errors very > early on the boot sequence, with message: > > tmpfs: No value for mount option 'strictatime' > mount: mounting on /newrun failed: invalid argument > mount used greatest stack depth 6752 bytes left. > > > > > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > >> Downloading... >> >> >> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Martin Abente < >> martin.abente.lah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Downloading 10001xx1.zd , will let you know how it goes soon. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>> >>>> I made builds for xo1 and xo1.5 with the firmware change >>>> >>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ >>>> >>>> The xo1 boots into sugar but there are no activities installed (I >>>> probably got something wrong in the ini). Testing on the xo1.5 one would be >>>> welcome, I'm curious if firmware solves the startup freeze. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 May 2014 00:24, Martin Abente wrote: >>>> >>>>> great!! Let me know when you have an image with this! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Firmware loading works with the rebuilt systemd! I have not tested >>>>>> much but wifi works now. Next step, build images with latest sugar... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10 May 2014 01:22, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I built a xo4 image, which like 1.75 boots fine into sugar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/xo4/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The main problem, as discussed, is that firmwares are not loaded. >>>>>>> I'm building a systemd rpm with firmware loading enabled. If we can get >>>>>>> wifi working then it should be easier to play with stuff, building in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> virtual machine takes really too long. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9 May 2014 14:13, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I built an image for 1.75 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've not been able to test yet. I don't have my usual usb stick >>>>>>>> with me and having troubles finding something the XO likes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8 May 2014 02:04, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As an update, I have patched xorg-x11-drv-dove and built rpms for >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://shell.sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/f20-xo1.75/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now building an image with those. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7 May 2014 15:18, Martin Abente >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Great! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will try your oob branch for 1.5, I do have XOs 1.5 for testing >>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez < >>>>>>>>>> dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7 May 2014 01:44, James Cameron wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > [...] And with the XO stuck on Fedor
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
A couple more images, for xo1 and xo1.5. They have sugar packages built from latest sugar git. I have not tested them yet so they might not even boot, but if someone gives them a try please let me know how they works. http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1/1/ http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1.5/1/ The xo1.5 one also *attempts* to fix the issue reported by Martin. The problem is that I'm running the x86 build slave inside docker.io, which doesn't like xpart. So I patched olpc-os-builder to manually losetup the partitions, but it's sort of tricky to get right. It will work eventually :) I have arm packages for latest git almost built, so tomorrow I should be able to build xo1.75 and xo4 images too. The oob configurations and some initial bits of automated builds infra are now here https://github.com/dnarvaez/xugar On 11 May 2014 20:49, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > This could be a change I made. I will investigate and let you know. > > > On 11 May 2014 20:31, Martin Abente wrote: > >> Hey Daniel, >> >> Could you check if this is correct? >> >> $md5sum 10001xx1.zd >> $0cc8f3f71d636c8dc4464ffb8bf1847b 10001xx1.zd >> >> >> Tested with 2 different XOs 1.5 and I am getting kernel panic errors very >> early on the boot sequence, with message: >> >> tmpfs: No value for mount option 'strictatime' >> mount: mounting on /newrun failed: invalid argument >> mount used greatest stack depth 6752 bytes left. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard >> wrote: >> >>> Downloading... >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Martin Abente < >>> martin.abente.lah...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Downloading 10001xx1.zd , will let you know how it goes soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I made builds for xo1 and xo1.5 with the firmware change >>>>> >>>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ >>>>> >>>>> The xo1 boots into sugar but there are no activities installed (I >>>>> probably got something wrong in the ini). Testing on the xo1.5 one would >>>>> be >>>>> welcome, I'm curious if firmware solves the startup freeze. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 May 2014 00:24, Martin Abente wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> great!! Let me know when you have an image with this! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Firmware loading works with the rebuilt systemd! I have not tested >>>>>>> much but wifi works now. Next step, build images with latest sugar... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10 May 2014 01:22, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I built a xo4 image, which like 1.75 boots fine into sugar >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/xo4/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The main problem, as discussed, is that firmwares are not loaded. >>>>>>>> I'm building a systemd rpm with firmware loading enabled. If we can get >>>>>>>> wifi working then it should be easier to play with stuff, building in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> virtual machine takes really too long. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9 May 2014 14:13, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I built an image for 1.75 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've not been able to test yet. I don't have my usual usb stick >>>>>>>>> with me and having troubles finding something the XO likes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8 May 2014 02:04, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As an update, I have patched xorg-x11-drv-dove and built rpms for >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://s
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
The xo1 image boots into sugar (latest from git) and wifi works. I'm now building xo4 images On 12 May 2014 02:12, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > A couple more images, for xo1 and xo1.5. They have sugar packages built > from latest sugar git. I have not tested them yet so they might not even > boot, but if someone gives them a try please let me know how they works. > > http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1/1/ > http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1.5/1/ > > The xo1.5 one also *attempts* to fix the issue reported by Martin. The > problem is that I'm running the x86 build slave inside docker.io, which > doesn't like xpart. So I patched olpc-os-builder to manually losetup the > partitions, but it's sort of tricky to get right. It will work eventually :) > > I have arm packages for latest git almost built, so tomorrow I should be > able to build xo1.75 and xo4 images too. The oob configurations and some > initial bits of automated builds infra are now here > > https://github.com/dnarvaez/xugar > > > > On 11 May 2014 20:49, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> This could be a change I made. I will investigate and let you know. >> >> >> On 11 May 2014 20:31, Martin Abente wrote: >> >>> Hey Daniel, >>> >>> Could you check if this is correct? >>> >>> $md5sum 10001xx1.zd >>> $0cc8f3f71d636c8dc4464ffb8bf1847b 10001xx1.zd >>> >>> >>> Tested with 2 different XOs 1.5 and I am getting kernel panic errors >>> very early on the boot sequence, with message: >>> >>> tmpfs: No value for mount option 'strictatime' >>> mount: mounting on /newrun failed: invalid argument >>> mount used greatest stack depth 6752 bytes left. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Downloading... >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Martin Abente < >>>> martin.abente.lah...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Downloading 10001xx1.zd , will let you know how it goes soon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I made builds for xo1 and xo1.5 with the firmware change >>>>>> >>>>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The xo1 boots into sugar but there are no activities installed (I >>>>>> probably got something wrong in the ini). Testing on the xo1.5 one would >>>>>> be >>>>>> welcome, I'm curious if firmware solves the startup freeze. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11 May 2014 00:24, Martin Abente >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> great!! Let me know when you have an image with this! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Daniel Narvaez >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Firmware loading works with the rebuilt systemd! I have not tested >>>>>>>> much but wifi works now. Next step, build images with latest sugar... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10 May 2014 01:22, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I built a xo4 image, which like 1.75 boots fine into sugar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/xo4/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The main problem, as discussed, is that firmwares are not loaded. >>>>>>>>> I'm building a systemd rpm with firmware loading enabled. If we can >>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>> wifi working then it should be easier to play with stuff, building in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> virtual machine takes really too long. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9 May 2014 14:13, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I built an image for 1.75 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/ >>>>>>
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
How far does it get? What are the last messages you see? Mostly I wonder if it's the partitions issue that tch reported yesterday or if we fail when running X. On Monday, 12 May 2014, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > xo-1.5 image do not boot, and show a strange gey patterns in the screen. > > Gonzalo > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > > The xo1 image boots into sugar (latest from git) and wifi works. I'm now > building xo4 images > > > On 12 May 2014 02:12, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > > A couple more images, for xo1 and xo1.5. They have sugar packages built > from latest sugar git. I have not tested them yet so they might not even > boot, but if someone gives them a try please let me know how they works. > > http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1/1/ > http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1.5/1/ > > The xo1.5 one also *attempts* to fix the issue reported by Martin. The > problem is that I'm running the x86 build slave inside docker.io, which > doesn't like xpart. So I patched olpc-os-builder to manually losetup the > partitions, but it's sort of tricky to get right. It will work eventually :) > > I have arm packages for latest git almost built, so tomorrow I should be > able to build xo1.75 and xo4 images too. The oob configurations and some > initial bits of automated builds infra are now here > > https://github.com/dnarvaez/xugar > > > > On 11 May 2014 20:49, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > > This could be a change I made. I will investigate and let you know. > > > On 11 May 2014 20:31, Martin Abente wrote: > > Hey Daniel, > > Could you check if this is correct? > > $md5sum 10001xx1.zd > $0cc8f3f71d636c8dc4464ffb8bf1847b 10001xx1.zd > > > Tested with 2 different XOs 1.5 and I am getting kernel panic errors very > early on the boot sequence, with message: > > tmpfs: No value for mount option 'strictatime' > mount: mounting on /newrun failed: invalid argument > mount used greatest stack depth 6752 bytes left. > > > > > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > > Downloading... > > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Martin Abente < > martin.abente.lah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Downloading 10001xx1.zd , will let you know how it goes soon. > > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > > I made builds for xo1 and xo1.5 with the firmware change > > <http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/> > > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
Ok, at least the partitions problem is fixed then. If Gonzalo can look at the logs with a serial port that might tell what is going on. I susoect the X driver but hard to say blindly :) On 12 May 2014 14:34, Martin Abente wrote: > Regarding XO 1.5 image, no more kernel panic, but as Gonzalo mentioned the > fading problem is still present. > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > >> I will attach a serial cable later and report. >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >> >>> How far does it get? What are the last messages you see? >>> >>> Mostly I wonder if it's the partitions issue that tch reported yesterday >>> or if we fail when running X. >>> >>> >>> On Monday, 12 May 2014, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: >>> >>>> xo-1.5 image do not boot, and show a strange gey patterns in the screen. >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> >>>> The xo1 image boots into sugar (latest from git) and wifi works. I'm >>>> now building xo4 images >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12 May 2014 02:12, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> >>>> A couple more images, for xo1 and xo1.5. They have sugar packages built >>>> from latest sugar git. I have not tested them yet so they might not even >>>> boot, but if someone gives them a try please let me know how they works. >>>> >>>> http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1/1/ >>>> http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1.5/1/ >>>> >>>> The xo1.5 one also *attempts* to fix the issue reported by Martin. The >>>> problem is that I'm running the x86 build slave inside docker.io, >>>> which doesn't like xpart. So I patched olpc-os-builder to manually losetup >>>> the partitions, but it's sort of tricky to get right. It will work >>>> eventually :) >>>> >>>> I have arm packages for latest git almost built, so tomorrow I should >>>> be able to build xo1.75 and xo4 images too. The oob configurations and some >>>> initial bits of automated builds infra are now here >>>> >>>> https://github.com/dnarvaez/xugar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 May 2014 20:49, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> >>>> This could be a change I made. I will investigate and let you know. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 May 2014 20:31, Martin Abente wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey Daniel, >>>> >>>> Could you check if this is correct? >>>> >>>> $md5sum 10001xx1.zd >>>> $0cc8f3f71d636c8dc4464ffb8bf1847b 10001xx1.zd >>>> >>>> >>>> Tested with 2 different XOs 1.5 and I am getting kernel panic errors >>>> very early on the boot sequence, with message: >>>> >>>> tmpfs: No value for mount option 'strictatime' >>>> mount: mounting on /newrun failed: invalid argument >>>> mount used greatest stack depth 6752 bytes left. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Downloading... >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Martin Abente < >>>> martin.abente.lah...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Downloading 10001xx1.zd , will let you know how it goes soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I made builds for xo1 and xo1.5 with the firmware change >>>> >>>> <http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Narvaez >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Gonzalo Odiard >> >> SugarLabs - Software for children learning >> > > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
I'm not quite convinced this is due to the not initialized eth0 (I'm not sure what that is due too though). From the serial console are you able to see the content of /var/log/Xorg.0.log (assuming there is one)? On 12 May 2014 15:08, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > log from xo-1.5 > > Looks like eth0 is not initialized and all stop there. > Probably you already know that, but xo-1 and xo-1.5 have a 8686 wireless > card, different to the 8787 in the xo-4 > > Gonzalo > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> Ok, at least the partitions problem is fixed then. If Gonzalo can look at >> the logs with a serial port that might tell what is going on. I susoect the >> X driver but hard to say blindly :) >> >> >> On 12 May 2014 14:34, Martin Abente wrote: >> >>> Regarding XO 1.5 image, no more kernel panic, but as Gonzalo mentioned >>> the fading problem is still present. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Gonzalo Odiard >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I will attach a serial cable later and report. >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> >>>>> How far does it get? What are the last messages you see? >>>>> >>>>> Mostly I wonder if it's the partitions issue that tch reported >>>>> yesterday or if we fail when running X. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, 12 May 2014, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> xo-1.5 image do not boot, and show a strange gey patterns in the >>>>>> screen. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gonzalo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Daniel Narvaez >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The xo1 image boots into sugar (latest from git) and wifi works. I'm >>>>>> now building xo4 images >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12 May 2014 02:12, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple more images, for xo1 and xo1.5. They have sugar packages >>>>>> built from latest sugar git. I have not tested them yet so they might not >>>>>> even boot, but if someone gives them a try please let me know how they >>>>>> works. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1/1/ >>>>>> http://146.185.144.82:3000/images/xo1.5/1/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The xo1.5 one also *attempts* to fix the issue reported by Martin. >>>>>> The problem is that I'm running the x86 build slave inside docker.io, >>>>>> which doesn't like xpart. So I patched olpc-os-builder to manually >>>>>> losetup >>>>>> the partitions, but it's sort of tricky to get right. It will work >>>>>> eventually :) >>>>>> >>>>>> I have arm packages for latest git almost built, so tomorrow I should >>>>>> be able to build xo1.75 and xo4 images too. The oob configurations and >>>>>> some >>>>>> initial bits of automated builds infra are now here >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/dnarvaez/xugar >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11 May 2014 20:49, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This could be a change I made. I will investigate and let you know. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11 May 2014 20:31, Martin Abente >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey Daniel, >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you check if this is correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> $md5sum 10001xx1.zd >>>>>> $0cc8f3f71d636c8dc4464ffb8bf1847b 10001xx1.zd >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tested with 2 different XOs 1.5 and I am getting kernel panic errors >>>>>> very early on the boot sequence, with message: >>>>>> >>>>>> tmpfs: No value for mount option 'strictatime' >>>>>> mount: mounting on /newrun failed: invalid argument >>>>>> mount used greatest stack depth 6752 bytes left. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Gonzalo Odiard < >>>>>> godi...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Downloading... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Martin Abente < >>>>>> martin.abente.lah...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Downloading 10001xx1.zd , will let you know how it goes soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Narvaez >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I made builds for xo1 and xo1.5 with the firmware change >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://sugarlabs.org/~dnarvaez/oob/images/> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Daniel Narvaez >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gonzalo Odiard >>>> >>>> SugarLabs - Software for children learning >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Narvaez >> > > > > -- > Gonzalo Odiard > > SugarLabs - Software for children learning > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
ersion 14.1 > [32.686] (II) Loading sub module "ramdac" > [32.686] (II) LoadModule: "ramdac" > [32.686] (II) Module "ramdac" already built-in > [32.686] (II) Loading sub module "ddc" > [32.686] (II) LoadModule: "ddc" > [32.686] (II) Module "ddc" already built-in > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output CRT has no monitor section > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output DVI has no monitor section > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output LCD using monitor section LCD > [32.686] (**) VIA(0): Option "DIPort" "DFP_HIGHLOW,DVP1" > [32.686] (**) VIA(0): Option "PanelSize" "1200x900" > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output TV has no monitor section > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output HDMI has no monitor section > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output DP has no monitor section > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output DP-2 has no monitor section > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output LCD-2 has no monitor section > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output CRT-2 has no monitor section > [32.703] (II) VIA(0): EDID for output CRT > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Printing probed modes for output LCD > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Modeline "1200x900"x49.7 57.27 1200 1211 1243 > 1264 900 901 911 912 (45.3 kHz P) > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Output CRT disconnected > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Output LCD connected > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Using exact sizes for initial modes > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Output LCD using initial mode 1200x900 +0+0 > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Using default gamma of (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) unless > otherwise stated. > [32.704] (==) VIA(0): DPI set to (96, 96) > [32.704] (--) Depth 24 pixmap format is 32 bpp > [32.716] (II) VIA(0): vgaHWGetIOBase: hwp->IOBase is 0x03d0 > [32.716] (II) VIA(0): [drm] Detect H6 chipset: 0007 chipid: 5122 > [32.806] (EE) VIA(0): DRM open error > [32.807] drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 > [32.812] drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 > [32.849] [drm] failed to load kernel module "chrome" > [32.849] (EE) [drm] drmOpen failed. > [32.849] (EE) VIA(0): [dri] DRIScreenInit failed. Disabling DRI. > [32.853] (II) VIA(0): H6 3D Engine has been initialized. > [32.853] (II) VIA(0): VIAInternalScreenInit > [32.854] DEBUG: maxPitchBytes 16383 > [32.854] (II) EXA(0): Offscreen pixmap area of 60005344 bytes > [32.854] (II) EXA(0): Driver registered support for the following > operations: > [32.854] (II) Solid > [32.854] (II) Copy > [32.854] (II) Composite (RENDER acceleration) > [32.854] (II) VIA(0): Enable EXA Now > [32.854] (II) VIA(0): [EXA] Trying to enable EXA acceleration. > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> I'm not quite convinced this is due to the not initialized eth0 (I'm not >> sure what that is due too though). From the serial console are you able to >> see the content of /var/log/Xorg.0.log (assuming there is one)? >> >> >> On 12 May 2014 15:08, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: >> >>> log from xo-1.5 >>> >>> Looks like eth0 is not initialized and all stop there. >>> Probably you already know that, but xo-1 and xo-1.5 have a 8686 wireless >>> card, different to the 8787 in the xo-4 >>> >>> Gonzalo >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, at least the partitions problem is fixed then. If Gonzalo can look >>>> at the logs with a serial port that might tell what is going on. I susoect >>>> the X driver but hard to say blindly :) >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12 May 2014 14:34, Martin Abente wrote: >>>> >>>>> Regarding XO 1.5 image, no more kernel panic, but as Gonzalo mentioned >>>>> the fading problem is still present. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Gonzalo Odiard >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I will attach a serial cable later and report. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gonzalo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Narvaez >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> How far does it get? What are the last messages you see? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mostly I wonder if it's the partitions issue that tch reported >>>>>>> yesterday or if we fail when running X. >&
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
(II) Module "i2c" already built-in > > [32.684] (II) VIA(0): I2C bus "I2C bus 1" initialized. > > [32.684] (II) VIA(0): I2C bus "I2C bus 2" initialized. > > [32.684] (II) Loading sub module "fb" > > [32.684] (II) LoadModule: "fb" > > [32.684] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libfb.so > > [32.685] (II) Module fb: vendor="X.Org Foundation" > > [32.685] compiled for 1.14.4, module version = 1.0.0 > > [32.685] ABI class: X.Org ANSI C Emulation, version 0.4 > > [32.685] (II) Loading sub module "exa" > > [32.685] (II) LoadModule: "exa" > > [32.685] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libexa.so > > [32.686] (II) Module exa: vendor="X.Org Foundation" > > [32.686] compiled for 1.14.4, module version = 2.6.0 > > [32.686] ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 14.1 > > [32.686] (II) Loading sub module "ramdac" > > [32.686] (II) LoadModule: "ramdac" > > [32.686] (II) Module "ramdac" already built-in > > [32.686] (II) Loading sub module "ddc" > > [32.686] (II) LoadModule: "ddc" > > [32.686] (II) Module "ddc" already built-in > > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output CRT has no monitor section > > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output DVI has no monitor section > > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output LCD using monitor section LCD > > [32.686] (**) VIA(0): Option "DIPort" "DFP_HIGHLOW,DVP1" > > [32.686] (**) VIA(0): Option "PanelSize" "1200x900" > > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output TV has no monitor section > > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output HDMI has no monitor section > > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output DP has no monitor section > > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output DP-2 has no monitor section > > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output LCD-2 has no monitor section > > [32.686] (II) VIA(0): Output CRT-2 has no monitor section > > [32.703] (II) VIA(0): EDID for output CRT > > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Printing probed modes for output LCD > > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Modeline "1200x900"x49.7 57.27 1200 1211 > 1243 > > 1264 900 901 911 912 (45.3 kHz P) > > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Output CRT disconnected > > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Output LCD connected > > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Using exact sizes for initial modes > > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Output LCD using initial mode 1200x900 +0+0 > > [32.704] (II) VIA(0): Using default gamma of (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) unless > > otherwise stated. > > [32.704] (==) VIA(0): DPI set to (96, 96) > > [32.704] (--) Depth 24 pixmap format is 32 bpp > > [32.716] (II) VIA(0): vgaHWGetIOBase: hwp->IOBase is 0x03d0 > > [32.716] (II) VIA(0): [drm] Detect H6 chipset: 0007 chipid: 5122 > > [32.806] (EE) VIA(0): DRM open error > > [32.807] drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 > > [32.812] drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 > > [32.849] [drm] failed to load kernel module "chrome" > > [32.849] (EE) [drm] drmOpen failed. > > [32.849] (EE) VIA(0): [dri] DRIScreenInit failed. Disabling DRI. > > [32.853] (II) VIA(0): H6 3D Engine has been initialized. > > [32.853] (II) VIA(0): VIAInternalScreenInit > > [32.854] DEBUG: maxPitchBytes 16383 > > [32.854] (II) EXA(0): Offscreen pixmap area of 60005344 bytes > > [32.854] (II) EXA(0): Driver registered support for the following > > operations: > > [32.854] (II) Solid > > [32.854] (II) Copy > > [32.854] (II) Composite (RENDER acceleration) > > [32.854] (II) VIA(0): Enable EXA Now > > [32.854] (II) VIA(0): [EXA] Trying to enable EXA acceleration. > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Daniel Narvaez > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm not quite convinced this is due to the not initialized eth0 (I'm not > >> sure what that is due too though). From the serial console are you able > to > >> see the content of /var/log/Xorg.0.log (assuming there is one)? > >> > >> > >> On 12 May 2014 15:08, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > >>> > >>> log from xo-1.5 > >>> > >>> Looks like eth0 is not initialized and all stop there. > >>> Probably you already know that, but xo-1 and xo-1.5 have a 8686 > wireless > >>> card, different to the 8787 in the xo-4 > >>> > >>> Gonzalo > >>> > >
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
Hello, things are looking good so far, we already have all the models booting into sugar 0.101 with wif apparentlyi working. I would like to take a step back and understand a bit better where we want to go with this. Some random thoughts and questions. * To really understand how much work is left I think we need some good testing, especially on the hardware related bits. I expect there will be lots of small things to fix, but it would be good to understand as early as possible if there are roadblocks. I'm a bad tester and I've never used the XO much, so I'm often not sure what is a regression and what is not... thus helping with this would be particularly appreciated. * Which deployments are planning to ship 0.102 soon and hence are interested in this work? I know of AU. Maybe Uruguay? * Do we need to support all the XO models? * Should we contribute the olpc-os-builder changes back to OLPC or fork it? I don't know if OLPC will do any active development on the linux side of things, if not maybe better to turn this into a sugarlabs thing. * Are interested deployments using olpc-update? If I'm not mistake AU is not. * Do we care about maintaining the GNOME "dual boot"? I'm afraid we do, but I want to make sure. * As I mentioned in some other thread I'm interested in setting up automated builds from sugar master. I have some vague plan of what it would look like and wrote bits of it. The basic idea is that you would push changes to github and get images automatically built. I think this is good for upstream testing but the same infrastructure could be used by deployments. Are people interested in using this? ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
Hi, to be honest I haven't even evaluated alternative distributions because I don't think we would have enough resources to do it anyway. We are making minor changes to olpc-os-builder, rewriting it for another distribution would be a lot of work. On 12 May 2014 20:11, Jon Nettleton wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Daniel Narvaez > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > things are looking good so far, we already have all the models booting > into > > sugar 0.101 with wif apparentlyi working. I would like to take a step > back > > and understand a bit better where we want to go with this. Some random > > thoughts and questions. > > > > * To really understand how much work is left I think we need some good > > testing, especially on the hardware related bits. I expect there will be > > lots of small things to fix, but it would be good to understand as early > as > > possible if there are roadblocks. I'm a bad tester and I've never used > the > > XO much, so I'm often not sure what is a regression and what is not... > thus > > helping with this would be particularly appreciated. > > * Which deployments are planning to ship 0.102 soon and hence are > interested > > in this work? I know of AU. Maybe Uruguay? > > * Do we need to support all the XO models? > > * Should we contribute the olpc-os-builder changes back to OLPC or fork > it? > > I don't know if OLPC will do any active development on the linux side of > > things, if not maybe better to turn this into a sugarlabs thing. > > * Are interested deployments using olpc-update? If I'm not mistake AU is > > not. > > * Do we care about maintaining the GNOME "dual boot"? I'm afraid we do, > but > > I want to make sure. > > * As I mentioned in some other thread I'm interested in setting up > automated > > builds from sugar master. I have some vague plan of what it would look > like > > and wrote bits of it. The basic idea is that you would push changes to > > github and get images automatically built. I think this is good for > upstream > > testing but the same infrastructure could be used by deployments. Are > people > > interested in using this? > > Why is all this work being put into Fedora 20? The maintenance window > is limited and as of the next release they won't even support non-KMS > drivers by default. Wouldn't make sense to look into a distribution > that provides and LTS release? Resources already seem to be limited > so having to chase after Fedora every 6 months to a year seems like a > waste of resources. The GTK3 and GNOME teams obviously have their > eyes on a different class of hardware than what is being used by > deployments. > > -Jon > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
On 12 May 2014 21:07, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > First, thanks for doing this work. > > Thanks for helping out. > I would like to take a step back and understand a bit better where we >> want to go with this. Some random thoughts and questions. >> >> * To really understand how much work is left I think we need some good >> testing, especially on the hardware related bits. I expect there will be >> lots of small things to fix, but it would be good to understand as early as >> possible if there are roadblocks. I'm a bad tester and I've never used the >> XO much, so I'm often not sure what is a regression and what is not... thus >> helping with this would be particularly appreciated. >> > > This is a issue. If we have a Sugar with similar functionalities > (settings and activities installed) we can request help from deployments > and volunteers. > Are you thinking to deployment specific settings and activities here? Or some kind of subset/reference that is good enough for all the interested deployments? * Should we contribute the olpc-os-builder changes back to OLPC or fork it? > I don't know if OLPC will do any active development on the linux side of > things, if not maybe better to turn this into a sugarlabs thing. > Probably James would know better respect of this issue. The changes we did > for AU are in a fork [1], but are not low level stuff, > just configurations. > Yes. I don't really have a strong feeling one way or another. I can send patches for the generic parts if they are wanted. I think we also need a place where to put reference configurations. I initially had put them in olpc-os-builder, numbered as 14.0.0 but that feels wrong... since no official olpc releases are planned. I suppose I could edit the examples/f18-[model].ini ones instead, but I would need access to whatever repository we use to change those without needing review every time. > * Are interested deployments using olpc-update? If I'm not mistake AU is >> not. >> > > We are not using it. I am pretty sure Nicaragua use it. > Is AU using yum? > * Do we care about maintaining the GNOME "dual boot"? I'm afraid we do, >> but I want to make sure. >> > > Yes. Is a important feature for the deployments. In the end deployments > don't ask for "Gnome", but for a standard desktop, > for some cases. If Gnome don't work without acceleration in F20, XFCE, > mate or similar can work. > I've seen screenshots of GNOME fallback in F20, so I'm hopeful it's still there. But yeah, in the worst case there are alternatives. * As I mentioned in some other thread I'm interested in setting up >> automated builds from sugar master. I have some vague plan of what it >> would look like and wrote bits of it. The basic idea is that you would push >> changes to github and get images automatically built. I think this is good >> for upstream testing but the same infrastructure could be used by >> deployments. Are people interested in using this? >> > > I am not sure if do a complete build for every sugar commit have sense, > maybe yes do weekly builds, or automatic rpms. > Yeah, weekly images and one rpm per commit was pretty much what I had in mind. (With yum based updates doing frequent builds is less important by the way). Well, it's probably good to have one image per commit to the build configurations repository, but that's different. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
On 13 May 2014 00:43, Paul Fox wrote: > daniel wrote: > > * Should we contribute the olpc-os-builder changes back to OLPC or fork > it? > > > I don't know if OLPC will do any active development on the linux side > of > > > things, if not maybe better to turn this into a sugarlabs thing. > ... > > Yes. I don't really have a strong feeling one way or another. I can send > > patches for the generic parts if they are wanted. > > > > I think we also need a place where to put reference configurations. I > > initially had put them in olpc-os-builder, numbered as 14.0.0 but that > > feels wrong... since no official olpc releases are planned. I suppose I > > could edit the examples/f18-[model].ini ones instead, but I would need > > access to whatever repository we use to change those without needing > review > > every time. > > in my opinion, the value of not forking would outweigh the risk of > giving commit privs to someone from (gasp!) sugarlabs. ;-) (that really > is just an opinion, of course. it's not my call.) > I don't know... we are kind of dangerous people :P > it also seems like this problem could be well solved with branches and > tags. i haven't looked at the o-o-b tree, but i assume the current > 13.2.0 point could be frozen (branch or tag) and other work could > continue, and eventually branched or tagged itself. > Yeah, I made my changes on a branch already (v8.0). ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
xo4 image finally built (untested yet) http://bender.sugarlabs.org:3000/images/xo4/2/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
On 13 May 2014 16:13, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> On 12 May 2014 21:07, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: >> >>> First, thanks for doing this work. >>> >>> >> Thanks for helping out. >> >> >>> I would like to take a step back and understand a bit better where we >>>> want to go with this. Some random thoughts and questions. >>>> >>>> * To really understand how much work is left I think we need some good >>>> testing, especially on the hardware related bits. I expect there will be >>>> lots of small things to fix, but it would be good to understand as early as >>>> possible if there are roadblocks. I'm a bad tester and I've never used the >>>> XO much, so I'm often not sure what is a regression and what is not... thus >>>> helping with this would be particularly appreciated. >>>> >>> >>> This is a issue. If we have a Sugar with similar functionalities >>> (settings and activities installed) we can request help from deployments >>> and volunteers. >>> >> >> Are you thinking to deployment specific settings and activities here? Or >> some kind of subset/reference that is good enough for all the interested >> deployments? >> > > Sounds good. Can you link the .ini with AU activities? ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
On 13 May 2014 01:49, James Cameron wrote: > > * Should we contribute the olpc-os-builder changes back to OLPC or > > fork it? I don't know if OLPC will do any active development on the > > linux side of things, if not maybe better to turn this into a > > sugarlabs thing. > > Contribute, please. In whatever way is best for you and your users; > (a) patches by mail, (b) fork and pull requests, (c) an account on > dev.laptop.org. > The non-configuration changes we have so far are here: https://github.com/dnarvaez/olpc-os-builder/compare/v7.0...v8.0 Can you review please? I can remove the dropbox change if I'm given access to rpmdropbox.laptop.org. Also, as I mentioned, I would need write access to the repo to push the configuration changes myself. I created an account on dev.laptop.org, user name is dnarvaez. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)
And finally a 1.75 image http://bender.sugarlabs.org:3000/images/xo1.75/1/ Testing on this would be appreciated because I don't have a working 1.75 with me. Now I'm going to try to get the olpc-os-builder changes upstream and setup the infrastructure bits more solidly on docky.sugarlabs.org (a vm I setup yesterday). Then I'll do builds with the fixes Martin sent. On 13 May 2014 04:27, Martin Abente wrote: > Downloading! > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote: > >> xo4 image finally built (untested yet) >> >> http://bender.sugarlabs.org:3000/images/xo4/2/ >> > > -- Daniel Narvaez ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
