"Could not activate this XO" error

[Tibi]

10x :)

On 7/23/07, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 256 MB of RAM suggests you have a B2-2. I'll try loading 528 on a B2-2
> and let you know what happens.
>
> -walter
>
> On 7/23/07, Tibi <tiberiuturbureanu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, guys, I've been testing continuously since my last mail.
> > Using the latest existing olpc-auto.zip file, I made it to install 499
> and
> > 502 but when I tried 525, 527, 528 it failed again.
> >
> > Could not activate this XO.
> > Serial Number: SHF7140010D
> >
> > I have 256 MB of RAM but maybe my laptop isn't B2 but B1. It had Q2C11
> > firmware and 2 days ago I upgraded to Q2C18  and first I tried
> installing XO
> > 528. That's my story. I've read again and again the wiki, I told you I
> even
> > translated a good part of it in Romanian, is not that. The algorithm
> > presented there doesn't work for me... :(
> >
> > It must be something I can do.
> > Tibi
> >
> >
> > On 7/23/07, Bert Freudenberg < bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> > > The auto update boot script supports both nand1234.img and
> > > os123456.img naming schemes, both fit into 8.3 FAT.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should use one for dev builds and the other for stable
> builds.
> > >
> > > >     Renaming the installation file does not change the version
> > > > number that
> > > >     is actually stored in the NAND FLASH as a result of the
> > > > installation.
> > >
> > > I thought that was obvious - sorry for not mentioning it, and thanks
> > > for spelling it out.
> > >
> > > - Bert -
> > >
> > > On Jul 23, 2007, at 5:57 , Mitch Bradley wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kim Quirk wrote:
> > > >> Thanks Mitch! I didn't know that.
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you think that is the best way to do the downgrade? I already
> > > >> changed the Autoreinstallation page to the notes I above. The
> > > >> possible problem at the end of the downgrade didn't sound good;
> > > >> and we are going to start using stable release numbers >1000, so
> > > >> if you do change it back, please keep that in mind.
> > > > I think the rename method is good.  It is simple, effective, and
> safe.
> > > >
> > > > As Dan points out, you have to both rename the file to e.g.
> > > > nand6000.img and change the corresponding number in olpc.fth .
> > > >
> > > > Be sure to respect the 8.3 limitation on the filename - nand60000
> > > > will fail on a FAT filesystem.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Kim
> > > >>
> > > >> On 7/22/07, *Mitch Bradley* < wmb at laptop.org
> > > >> <mailto: wmb at laptop.org>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>     Kim Quirk wrote:
> > > >>     > I don't recommend that your rename your nand to a higher
> build
> > > >>     number
> > > >>     > than it actually is just to avoid a downgrade. You may never
> > > >> be able
> > > >>     > to catch up (or catch back down to the proper version).
> > > >>     >
> > > >>
> > > >>     Renaming the installation file does not change the version
> > > >> number that
> > > >>     is actually stored in the NAND FLASH as a result of the
> > > >> installation.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Devel mailing list
> > > Devel at lists.laptop.org
> > > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list
> > Devel at lists.laptop.org
> > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> One Laptop per Child
> http://laptop.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070723/1c99968b/attachment.html>