11.3.0 build 4 released, for *XO-1.75*, XO-1.5 and XO-1

[Kevin Gordon]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:28 PM, John Gilmore <gnu at toad.com> wrote:

> > a mess. I made the suggestion on adding an a/i to the build so it
> > would be os4i.zd4 or os4a.zd4.
>
> You couldn't put the model number into the file?  Rather than
> a cryptic a or i, how about 1, 1.5, or 1.75?  Teachers and kids
> aren't going to know who designed the processor inside their laptop.
> We'll be lucky if they DO know the model number, since it isn't
> printed on the device.  (Perhaps inside the battery compartment?)
>
> IMO, this isn't an issue that affects users at all. They're getting their
installs either remotely or on media from deployment builders.  The 8.3
'name' of the deployment image is now and should remain transparent to most
end-users.  It's not really even an issue for 'developers', as when I'm
acting as a tester, or developer, and I do mess up my images, it's really
always my fault, I've just been too hasty or careless and should know
better.

I do believe the issue is to make it so that easy for the image builders to
create unambiguous image files so that the downstream deployers have every
opportunity to get the right images onto the right machines easily. As such,
having non-unique image names for incompatible architectures is actually
most harmful to the target group that it affects most: people building bulk
deployment media. Bringing users and developers into the discussion is a bit
of a "mis-use case", since they are not really stakeholders. :-)

In summary, users shouldn't need to know the arch, and Developers should
know.  But, I have to believe that most builders and deployers would welcome
an easy fix.  It's also really a new issue for discussion, since it is only
now that the 'coincidence' of the two different architecture files are named
the same 8.3  has occurred.  On the XO1 and 1.5 they were named differently,
even if only in suffix.

Also, please remember that the firmware for each model is named
differently.  Kernels for each model are named differently.   And, as I
mentioned in a previous email, when I'm putting together a batch bash script
to deploy rpm's for updates or extrra features, all of the rpms have unique
release and architecture in them, so are also named differently.   I can
thereby easily verify my work before deploying in bulk.  The end user may
not care that it's an fc14.i686 version of cheese on the USB stick, but in
order to make a successful install stick, I sure do. To ask that one could
just as easily identify the intended destination of an install image by name
should be just as easy, I think.

KG
>
>        John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110911/1372285e/attachment.html>