"Could not activate this XO" error

[Pedro Kayatt]

in B2 here works, but in build 529 is too slow (i think is a problem of
memory)...
B1 fails... ((SHF00000000))

2007/7/23, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
>
> It works for me in B2 to B4, but B1 fails to activate (SHF00000000),
>
> - Bert -
>
> On Jul 23, 2007, at 14:42 , Tibi 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>



-- 
Att,
Pedro Kayatt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070723/53f6f660/attachment.html>