> It would be good to improve the situation, but as was discussed in the
> past, yum does not seem to work very well on the XO. Manually tracking
> the relevant upstream security updates would require some effort.
My own preference is to not work with "static" software - but to apply
as many updat
El Mon, 31-05-2010 a las 08:19 +1200, Tim McNamara escribió:
> Just for my knowledge, does Fedora have an equivalent to Ubuntu's
> long-term support releases?
Yes, it's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and it comes with commercial
support. If you want a free-beer equivalent with no guarantees,
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tim McNamara
wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti
>> wrote:
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
>> > for the XO-1. Our focu
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Tim McNamara
wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti
>> wrote:
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
>> > for the XO-1. Our foc
CentOS ?
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Tim McNamara
wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti
>> wrote:
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
>> > for the XO-1.
On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti
> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
> > for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments,
> > although we're
El Wed, 26-05-2010 a las 12:00 -0300, Daniel Drake escribió:
> As has been pointed out, there is some kernel code floating around
> that is working in this direction. However, it's not totally correct
> and the kernel developers want a more generic system rather than
> something Geode-specific. An
On 25 May 2010 18:12, Peter Robinson wrote:
> That's not entirely true. The was no changes in CPU support from F-12
> to F-13. What has happened was a change in gcc which causes issues
> with F-13 on geode processors. There's a bit missing from gcc for
> geode support that would need to be added.
Hi,
> TBH I don't know what changed between F-12 and F-13. It wasn't
> the compile flag changes as I checked them so I'm wondering
> wondering why its suddenly a problem.
gcc changed; it started emitting NOPL instructions under i686.
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball
One Laptop Per Child
_
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> El Wed, 26-05-2010 a las 09:29 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió:
>
>> > I'm happy to hear this. F14 may bring interesting changes for the XO1,
>> > can we hope that support for the Geode won't have been dropped by
>> > then?
>>
>> There was
El Wed, 26-05-2010 a las 09:29 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió:
> > I'm happy to hear this. F14 may bring interesting changes for the XO1,
> > can we hope that support for the Geode won't have been dropped by
> > then?
>
> There was a bug report [1] that was filed about it to do with glibc.
> Sinc
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 23:12, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>>> El Tue, 25-05-2010 a las 19:16 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió:
>>>
Is F-11 still the base OS for this?
>>>
>>> Unfortun
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 23:12, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>> El Tue, 25-05-2010 a las 19:16 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió:
>>
>>> Is F-11 still the base OS for this?
>>
>> Unfortunately, this build is still based on Fedora 11.
>>
>> Fedora 13
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> El Tue, 25-05-2010 a las 19:16 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió:
>
>> Is F-11 still the base OS for this?
>
> Unfortunately, this build is still based on Fedora 11.
>
> Fedora 13 dropped support for the Geode processor, so it's not an
> opti
El Tue, 25-05-2010 a las 19:16 +0100, Peter Robinson escribió:
> Is F-11 still the base OS for this?
Unfortunately, this build is still based on Fedora 11.
Fedora 13 dropped support for the Geode processor, so it's not an
option. Upgrading to Fedora 12 would be possible, but there are unsolved
i
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> On 05/25/2010 08:16 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
>>> for the XO-1. Our
On 05/25/2010 08:16 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
>> for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments,
>> although we're also a
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
> for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments,
> although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features
> de
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 12:25 -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
> for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments,
> although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features
>
Hello everyone,
we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments,
although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features
developed in Uruguay.
Full details are here:
http://wiki.sugarlabs.
20 matches
Mail list logo
