The "The life of a dreamer, the days of a business, and the nights in
between." release.
This is the end of the development cycle. We're now headed into the
stabilisation and bug fixing phase.
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/12.1.0/Release_plan
Fixed bugs:
#10040 we don't use all available SD card sp
On Jun 8, 2012 2:53 PM, "Peter Robinson" wrote:
>
> The "The life of a dreamer, the days of a business, and the nights in
> between." release.
>
> This is the end of the development cycle. We're now headed into the
> stabilisation and bug fixing phase.
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/12.1.0/Release_
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jon Nettleton wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2012 2:53 PM, "Peter Robinson" wrote:
>>
>> The "The life of a dreamer, the days of a business, and the nights in
>> between." release.
>>
>> This is the end of the development cycle. We're now headed into the
>> stabilisation and
On Jun 8, 2012 3:07 PM, "Peter Robinson" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jon Nettleton
wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 8, 2012 2:53 PM, "Peter Robinson" wrote:
> >>
> >> The "The life of a dreamer, the days of a business, and the nights in
> >> between." release.
> >>
> >> This is the end of th
For your interest, os13 for XO-1.75 contains firmware Q4D16, which
incorrectly displays the processor core frequency. The core continues
to run at 800 MHz even though it may show as either 910 MHz or 800
MHz.
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2012-June/035324.html
--
James Cameron
http://
Due to a missing character in a change to olpc-os-builder[*], 12.1.0 os13
builds do not have any working Linux console terminals, and will repeatedly
try to set permissions on the /dev directory to 0600 (root-only read/write)
while trying to restart said terminals.
This permissions change on /dev
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
> Due to a missing character in a change to olpc-os-builder[*], 12.1.0 os13
> builds do not have any working Linux console terminals, and will repeatedly
> try to set permissions on the /dev directory to 0600 (root-only read/write)
> while tr
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
> To fix this, try to get into a Terminal program in Sugar or GNOME as fast as
> you can, or use the serial port console (which is not time-restricted).
I am an emacs-man (sometimes) so I tried a alternative with less
steps. I failed. As Mik
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:47:58PM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> emacs int:2.\versions\run\13\usr\lib\systemd\system\getty@.service
>
> Editing worked well, however, OFW said "[Writing..]Not writing to
> the ext2 filesystem because of unsupported extensions. Flushbuf
> error."
>
> The next prom
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:47:58PM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> emacs int:2.\versions\run\13\usr\lib\systemd\system\getty@.service
>
> Editing worked well, however, OFW said "[Writing..]Not writing to the
> ext2 filesystem because of unsupported extensions. Flushbuf error."
Oh, don't try this
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Yep, according to the olpc-utils git repo it should have been in
> 2.0.13 which we have, it seems either didn't have a trac ticket or it
> wasn't in my queue/
Actually, we missed this on os13, it never made it to olpc-utils.
I just committe
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Yep, according to the olpc-utils git repo it should have been in
>> 2.0.13 which we have, it seems either didn't have a trac ticket or it
>> wasn't in my queue/
>
> Actually, we miss
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I was just going on the logs from git and we have 2.0.13 and according
> to the logs 2.0.13 was post that commit, but it seems it wasn't tagged
> so I assume 2.0.13 is the same as 2.0.12 then
>
> http://dev.laptop.org/git/projects/olpc-utils
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I was just going on the logs from git and we have 2.0.13 and according
>> to the logs 2.0.13 was post that commit, but it seems it wasn't tagged
>> so I assume 2.0.13 is the same as
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Jon Nettleton wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> I was just going on the logs from git and we have 2.0.13 and according
>>> to the logs 2.0.13 was post that commit, but it
15 matches
Mail list logo
