New joyride build 2544

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at
Fri Nov 14 13:05:13 EST 2008

>>>>>>> That said, we might package 0.83.x releases in debian unstable and
>>>>>>> thus ubuntu jaunty with a view to landing 0.84 without a large delta
>>>>>>> when it does release, because that might be after the ubuntu feature
>>>>>>> freeze.
>>>>>> Cool, so sounds like something that will eventually be good to get
>>>>>> into rawhide then.
>>>>> Totally, perhaps someone would like to help us here?
>>>>> Normally, OLPC contractors will be updating the rpms in OLPC-4, and
>>>>> we'll try to maintain devel updated as well, though it's quite a bit
>>>>> of work. If someone wanted to take that work out from our shoulders,
>>>>> would be awesome.
>>>> Yep, I can help out with that. I've been helping gregdek with getting
>>>> some of the OLPC changes upstream so as to get as much as possible
>>>> into mainline Fedora so the OLPC guys can concentrate on more
>>>> important stuff. I've got a list of most of the issues from 8.2 but
>>>> arrived on the scene a little late to have much impact there. So now
>>>> that we're rebasing to F-10 I'll be working to minimise the
>>>> requirement of package forks.
>>> That sounds like music to my hears!
>>> I think that we are using #olpc-devel in OFTC to work on the F10
>>> rebase, feel free to join us.
>> OFTC?
> Sorry:
>>> About updating sugar in rawhide, perhaps you can just watch out the
>>> commits in the OLPC-4 branches and decide yourself when to update
>>> Rawhide?
>> I did this comparison from Fedora mainline to joyride 2514 for a 8.2
>> comparison, I guess quite a bit of it will be still relevant.
> Yes, I see it quite in line with
> . What do
> you think?
> I see that today Denis forked SDL_mixer to drop the MIDI samples.
> Perhaps next step would be to drop the unneeded GNOME packages?

Not sure but I'll add it to my list. The other thought that had come
to mind. Is there a plan for this release to move from gnome-vfs to
gio/gvfs (does OLPC even use it?). I think quite a few of the mainline
packages have moved that direction so. I also plan to look at getting
alot of the bits like cd-rom related bits split out. The will also be
useful for NetBook style spins (I'm also involved in Fedora Mini for
small devices - netbooks, MIDs etc) as none of those come with any
form of optical drive.

Another query, what is the reason in a number of packages to drop the
gtk-docs option from some packages? I can't see the difference in
files between packages, just wondering what the reasons are?


More information about the Devel mailing list