New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
mavrothal at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 12 16:41:28 EDT 2010
--- On Mon, 4/12/10, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis" <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Bernie Innocenti" <bernie at codewiz.org>, "Devel" <devel at lists.laptop.org>, "Fedora OLPC" <fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com>
> Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 3:56 PM
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:40 PM,
> Yioryos Asprobounitis
> <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> > --- On Mon, 4/12/10, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org>
> >> From: Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org>
> >> Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
> >> To: "Peter Robinson" <pbrobinson at gmail.com>
> >> Cc: "Devel" <devel at lists.laptop.org>,
> "Fedora OLPC" <fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com>
> >> Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 9:15 AM
> >> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 17:57 +0100,
> >> Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> > >> Finally, I guess you have thought of
> it, but
> >> by the
> >> > >> time 10.2 will be out F11
> repositories will
> >> be down
> >> > >> and thus the builds totally frozen
> >> software-wise.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think it would have been better to
> rebase on
> >> F12 6 months ago.
> >> > > Now it's way too close to the release
> date :-(
> >> >
> >> > I recommended F-12 which was in beta when
> this process
> >> started but was
> >> > ignored. I noticed the other day that dsd has
> >> a F-12 branch in
> >> > git but I think we should be aiming straight
> for F-13
> >> now. It'll be
> >> > out in a little over a month, is quite stable
> >> and have will be
> >> > supported for another 14 months.
> >> +1
> >> F13, btw, seems like a very solid release to me.
> > I do not know why re-basing on F13 will reach
> deployment status much faster than F11 and will not be at
> the same point a year from now.
> > The XO is a _production_ machine. Makes no sense to
> run development/short-lived OS. Maybe the RHEL/CentOS idea
> should not be dismissed, if feasible.
> In the longer term its likely that it will be. The
> libraries in CentOS
> 5 are too old. The problem is that RHEL-6 isn't out yet,
> nor is there
> any announcements when it will be, then from there the
> CentOS team
> need to review, engineer, QA and release CentOS 6. Then you
> need to
> build/test/QA sugar etc for it.
> It will then be OK for a while until Sugar needs a newer
> version of a
> library that is static on CentOS due to the support
> requirements. And
> then it reverts to Fedora. And before you mention Ubuntu
> LTS, the
> previous LTS has the same version issues, the current one
> will still
> have the same problems going forward.
Maybe so, but the fact is that "going forward" actually means that the XOs are still running F9, and hopping to get an EOL F11 in the next few months.
So at the end of the day this "needed library" is not actually used by the vast majority of the actual users.
I repeat that the XO, and education in general, is/needs _production_ machines. Given the resources and the development rate, a 3-4 years OS support should be the minimum I think, even if the feature requiring "that library" is not implemented.
Just my 2c.
More information about the Devel