Am Montag, den 12.01.2009, 14:41 -0500 schrieb Erik Garrison:
> Here is an image builder which makes Fedora 10-based desktop images
> for the XO. They use XFCE. Currently there is at least one
> outstanding bug, which is that network manager applet won't start
> because of security configuration
Here is an image builder which makes Fedora 10-based desktop images
for the XO. They use XFCE. Currently there is at least one
outstanding bug, which is that network manager applet won't start
because of security configuration problems with consolekit.
http://dev.laptop.org/git/users/erik/rpmxo
Am Dienstag, den 06.01.2009, 17:31 -0500 schrieb Erik Garrison:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:54:24PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> >
> > On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > > Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> > >
> > >> Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchm
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 09:21, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE
interface. Why I haven't pursued it yet is because t
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> > For the evince vs sugar-evince I suspect we need to try and get the
>>> > mainline evince split out into evince and evince-libs so that we
>>> > can build sugar-evince against it similar to what we do with
>>> > abiword and write
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 09:21, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
>>> I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE
>>> interface. Why I haven't pursued it yet is because the API for
>>> developing new gio backends is still privat
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE
>> interface. Why I haven't pursued it yet is because the API for
>> developing new gio backends is still private and our new backend would
>> then need to live inside the
>> > For the evince vs sugar-evince I suspect we need to try and get the
>> > mainline evince split out into evince and evince-libs so that we
>> > can build sugar-evince against it similar to what we do with
>> > abiword and write (I think that's its name).
>>
>> Yep, sounds good.
>
> When
>> I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE
>> interface. Why I haven't pursued it yet is because the API for
>> developing new gio backends is still private and our new backend would
>> then need to live inside the gvfs gnome module or as a patch in every
>> distro. As
Erik Garrison wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 07:47:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> One thing, we try not to do, is deviate from upstream and apply many
>> patches like some of the other Xfce based spin-off's do which is a
>> general Fedora policy as well and not something specific to the
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 07:47:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> One thing, we try not to do, is deviate from upstream and apply many
> patches like some of the other Xfce based spin-off's do which is a
> general Fedora policy as well and not something specific to the Xfce
> team.
The patc
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 07:47:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't believe that is true at all. I believe XFCE is an install
>> option during a full install and there's a fully Fedora blessed XFCE
>> spin available from Fedora here http://spins.fedoraproject.org
> I'm very interested on this, as it would give us also for free a FUSE
> interface. Why I haven't pursued it yet is because the API for
> developing new gio backends is still private and our new backend would
> then need to live inside the gvfs gnome module or as a patch in every
> distro. Aside f
> I'm not seeing a menu, even after killing ohmd, with "When the power
> button is pressed: Ask me" chosen in the g-p-m prefs. Dunno why yet.
This works in debXO 0.4, I use it all the time. Ask dilinger how he
made it work.
John
___
Devel mail
Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> I don't believe that is true at all. I believe XFCE is an install
> option during a full install and there's a fully Fedora blessed XFCE
> spin available from Fedora here http://spins.fedoraproject.org/ . It
> is certainly not the main desktop they support but it is no l
>> Does pilgrim (Puritan?) use "kickstart" like files?
>
> Nope.
>
>> If not, why do we not create builds using what seems to be fedora's
>> standard build system?
>
> The short answer is that there has never been consensus among the people
> dealing with OLPC's builds that anaconda was the right t
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:40:07PM -0500, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
> Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>>
>>> > I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or
>>> > even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed
>>> > up). Surely it should be pull
Hi Chris,
> > For the evince vs sugar-evince I suspect we need to try and get the
> > mainline evince split out into evince and evince-libs so that we
> > can build sugar-evince against it similar to what we do with
> > abiword and write (I think that's its name).
>
> Yep, sounds good.
Wh
Hi Peter,
> Good news. I'm aware of the conflicts you mention. I'm not sure
> that we need evince-dvi (not sure if its a requirement of anything
> though and hence gets pulled in automatically).
That's right, we don't need it. It's part of the groupinstall, but it's
not depended on othe
Hi Chris,
> > How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised
> > that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd
> > requirements.
>
> Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GConf2-dbus,
> both ship the same .mo files) and evince (against sugar-
Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi Chris,
> I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or
> even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed
> up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl from the Fedora repos
> anyway?
I've just pushed a patch to pilgri
> Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I think
> there are significant differences in system resource consumption.
I don't believe the decision has been made yet.
> I ask because the impression I had from informal tests was that a system
> booting into GNOME was consum
Hi Paul,
> i was actually thinking in the other direction: if the ohmd action
> were disabled, i assume we'd get the g-p-m screen. is that screen
> tuneable? if g-p-m is possibly going in anyway, it might obviate
> the power button menu work.
I'm not seeing a menu, even after killin
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
> Greg,
>
> I don't mean to be nasty, but I do feel the need to be blunt:
>
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:28:36PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> We are definitely behind where I would like to be at this stage.
>
> How far behind?
Hi Greg,
> The choice of file system isn't a deal breaker for the Fedora
> Desktop feature. The hard part will be picking the right desktop
> (more on that soon, I already love the dancing benchmark bears :-),
> making it fit on the NAND, and testing it enough to prove its
> usable.
Hi Michael,
No problem being blunt.
I don't know yet how far behind we are or what it will take to catch up.
We are close if we create a target bug list in the next two weeks then
start daily triage and weekly test blitzes.
Quality is my primary concern, especially if you throw in a lot of new
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:54:24PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
> On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> >
> >> Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
> >
> > Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM cons
> Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not CPU.
> I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave differently
> in terms of background CPU overhead or cost of common operations.
Well, in any case, it really wouldn't hurt to benchmark the CPU
consumption
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
> Carlos Nazareno wrote:
>
>> Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
>
> Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not
> CPU. I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave
> dif
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Carlos Nazareno wrote:
>>
>>> Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
>>
>> Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not
>> CPU. I person
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Chris Ball wrote:
> > Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE.
> > I think there are significant differences in system resource
> > consumption.
>
> Ed, maybe you can help here -- since this has been going back and forth
> for a while, could you hel
On 06.01.2009, at 22:34, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
> Carlos Nazareno wrote:
>
>> Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
>
> Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not
> CPU. I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave
Greg,
I don't mean to be nasty, but I do feel the need to be blunt:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:28:36PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> We are definitely behind where I would like to be at this stage.
How far behind?
> However, we'll only move the date when we must and we'll only do i
Carlos Nazareno wrote:
> Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
Currently, we are assuming that the issue will be RAM consumption, not
CPU. I personally have no reason to expect either system to behave
differently in terms of background CPU overhead or cost of co
I vote XFCE.
Guys, maybe this can help. I whipped up a flash CPU benchmarking tool
some time ago to measure the impact of switching from Actionscript 2.0
to 3.0. I called it TeddyMark and it has 16 instances of Teddy (a
character we made for one of our games) running around the screen and
an FPS m
Hi Michael,
We are definitely behind where I would like to be at this stage.
However, we'll only move the date when we must and we'll only do it to
improve quality or possibly to include a customer critical feature.
We wont move the date to allow in major new features (e.g. new file
system) so
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:19:52PM -0800, Deepak Saxena wrote:
>On Jan 06 2009, at 14:42, Chris Ball was caught saying:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm
>>> thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of
>>> the flash
On Jan 06 2009, at 14:42, Chris Ball was caught saying:
> Hi,
>
>> I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm
>> thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of
>> the flash chip. With only 256MiB of RAM, we are bound to swap a
>> lot. I'
Another plug for Teapot's Intrepid Ibex install if you want an easy way to
try the Ubuntu XFCE out on an SD card. I think it is quite beautiful.
http://www.olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=4053.0
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Erik Garrison wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 02:23:24PM -0500
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 02:23:24PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I
>> think there are significant differences in system resource
>> consumption.
>
> We had a long thread about whether to use GNOME or XFCE on devel@
chris wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> what happens when you push the power button?
>
>> i assume the laptop will suspend due to ohmd, but i think g-p-m is
>> doing the same dbus listen, no?
>
> We can just set "When power button is pressed: Do nothing" in the g-p-m
> prefs. Yeah, ohmd i
Hi,
> what happens when you push the power button?
> i assume the laptop will suspend due to ohmd, but i think g-p-m is
> doing the same dbus listen, no?
We can just set "When power button is pressed: Do nothing" in the g-p-m
prefs. Yeah, ohmd is running/working.
- Chris.
--
Chris B
Hi,
> I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm
> thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of
> the flash chip. With only 256MiB of RAM, we are bound to swap a
> lot. I'd feel more comfortable if we did flash-wide wear leveling
> usin
chris wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>> How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised
>> that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd
>> requirements.
>
> Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GConf2-dbus,
> both ship the same .mo file
On Jan 06 2009, at 14:23, Chris Ball was caught saying:
> Hi,
>
>> Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I
>> think there are significant differences in system resource
>> consumption.
>
> We had a long thread about whether to use GNOME or XFCE on devel@ las
Hi,
> Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE.
> I think there are significant differences in system resource
> consumption.
Ed, maybe you can help here -- since this has been going back and forth
for a while, could you help us come to/make a decision about whether
Hi,
> Now, the question I have is why we would chose GNOME over XFCE. I
> think there are significant differences in system resource
> consumption.
We had a long thread about whether to use GNOME or XFCE on devel@ last
month. I suggested XFCE, and was persuaded that the disk image size
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Erik Garrison wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:31:12PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> > How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised
>> > that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd
>> > requirements.
>>
>> Yep, it work
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:31:12PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>> How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised
>> that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd
>> requirements.
>
> Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GCo
Hi Peter,
> How did you go with this? Did you have any luck? I also realised
> that if you drop gnome-user-share you'll drop all the httpd
> requirements.
Yep, it worked! I had RPM conflicts in GConf2 (against GConf2-dbus,
both ship the same .mo files) and evince (against sugar-evince,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 07:50, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>* Does not need to make it easy to share files between Fedora and Sugar.
> - assuming its all running from the same base OS and just switching
> GUIs this should be OK except for stuff stored in the journal
> possibly. If its stored in the
Hi Chris,
>> > I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or
>> > even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed
>> > up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl from the Fedora repos
>> > anyway?
>>
>> I've just pushed a patch to pilgrim's joyride
Hi Chris,
> > I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or
> > even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed
> > up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl from the Fedora repos
> > anyway?
>
> I've just pushed a patch to pilgrim's joyride branc
Hi Peter,
> I would remove the old fc9 build from the olpc_development repo (or
> even have one for 8.2.0 and one for 9.1.0 so they don't get mixed
> up). Surely it should be pulling cyrus-sasl from the Fedora repos
> anyway?
I've just pushed a patch to pilgrim's joyride branch to sw
Hi Chris,
No probs on the reply.
> Hi Peter, thanks for the reply,
>
> > Is this on 8.2.0 or joyride? It looks like 8.2 due to the
> > gnome-python version being olpc3.
>
> It's running a joyride F10 build, but looks like you're right about
> olpc3. Here's the /etc/yum.repos.d/olpc-developme
Hi Peter, thanks for the reply,
> Is this on 8.2.0 or joyride? It looks like 8.2 due to the
> gnome-python version being olpc3.
It's running a joyride F10 build, but looks like you're right about
olpc3. Here's the /etc/yum.repos.d/olpc-development.repo shipped in
Joyride:
[olpc_developmen
> Hi Greg,
>
> Sorry for delayed response, I've had little internet connectivity so
> have only had limited mail access and mostly through a windows box :(
>
>> I'm still looking for help resolving the dependencies Chris found when he
>> tried to install Gnome.
>>
>> The issue and thread are docume
Hi Greg,
Sorry for delayed response, I've had little internet connectivity so
have only had limited mail access and mostly through a windows box :(
> I'm still looking for help resolving the dependencies Chris found when he
> tried to install Gnome.
>
> The issue and thread are documented in the
Hi Peter et al,
I'm still looking for help resolving the dependencies Chris found when
he tried to install Gnome.
The issue and thread are documented in the specifications section here:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Run_Fedora_applications_on_XO
What do we do next when we get a list
59 matches
Mail list logo
