F-10 joyride vs 8.2 - getting fixes upstream.
dsd at laptop.org
Tue Nov 18 16:53:06 EST 2008
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Inlined below but the problem we have at the moment with things pretty
> locked down in preparation for Fedora-10 final the changes and fixes
> we get in are being held in the updates queue (like the ones I fixed
Don't let this slow you down. Tag your packages as dist-olpc4. I just
did these for the 3 you have already done (thanks!). They will appear
in joyride later tonight.
> A large chunk of the differences are already upstream in Fedora 10.
> The rest I'm prepared to run with as much as possible and I'm sure
> gregdek, jkatz and others on the fedora-olpc are there to help me out,
> plus of course the no doubt copious advice from this list ;-)
Thanks. With the Fedora 9 upgrade, we found it really useful to have a
wiki page listing the outstanding regressions that were related to
upgrade fallout. I created one here:
and populated it with the parts from
Distro_version_migration_nastiness that I think need to be fixed for
F10/9.1. Feel free to update and modify as you see fit, or ignore if
you think it is useless :)
> The reason I propose this while might be a bit more work now it means
> that overall fedora mainline will end up assisting in the majority of
> the work.
Agreed, and now is the right time in the cycle.
> These ones are much much easier to fix as its within the Fedora
> project. We'll issues we'll have is with the more unresponsive
> developers but there are ways to deal with those. I'm quite happy to
> deal with these ones, log bugs, and even make the changes required in
> conjunction with the package maintainers.
Sounds good. I think you will find that some are harder to fix, even
though they are entirely Fedora, because OLPC has different
requirements from your normal desktop users. Let's see how we get on
> There's a couple of ways it can be dealt with. Someone can file a bug
> an link it against the tracker bug so I can chase. Or to flag them to
> me and I'll file the bug and chase. I already have done some of these.
OK. I want to help with some of this, I did a lot of the work for F9
so know what to look for and how to address these things. Expect some
bugs coming from my end :)
> I figured there would be some sort of aim like this. Where are we on
> this aim of the 100 meg with say the 8.2 release? Looking at the
> correlation between the different releases below it looks like the 8.2
> release was the smallest and as we stand we're not that much bigger
> than update_1. But I suspect that is the sizing is based of a bunch of
> rpms as opposed to install size. Remove just perl I we'll be below
> update_1, from there I think it should be achievable to get the size
> down to 8.2 in a pretty reasonable time.
Our smallest release by far was ship2. The above pages show it as
bigger than 8.2, but actually ship2 includes activities and library
content (over 100mb, I think) which we exclude from later builds and
ship2 including activities and library is 279mb.
8.2-g1g1-767 including activities and library is 450mb.
Not a fair comparison because 8.2 includes more activities, including
the 100mb WikipediaEN, but the point is there: we are continually
getting bigger and it is a difficult battle to keep things the same
size, never mind making them get smaller.
> BTW is there a live-cd or VM image download of joyride? I would like
> to run one up on a VM environment where I can run some RPM dep hacky
> scripts against the rpm install.
I think you can run the joyride images in emulation. I also think its
about time we got you an XO. Submit an application here:
More information about the Devel