olpc os builder

[Tim Moody]

Thanks for this explanation.  Indeed when I saw that the next time I ran I 
got 21004xx0.img I suspected what you have confirmed.

However, just to be clear, if I build from 
/usr/share/doc/olpc-os-builder-5.0.2/examples/olpc-os-12.1.0-xo1.ini, will 
the image be identical to the release, regardless of build number?

Tim
-----Original Message----- 
From: James Cameron
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 5:16 PM
To: Tim Moody
Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org
Subject: Re: olpc os builder

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:54:14PM -0500, Tim Moody wrote:
> I created an fc17-32 vm and installed olpc-os-builder.
>
> When I run olpc-os-builder
> /usr/share/doc/olpc-os-builder-5.0.2/examples/olpc-os-12.1.0-xo1.ini
> I get 21003xx0.img, etc., which does not seem to be the latest
> build.  I was expecting something like 21021xx0.img.  How do I build
> the latest?

21003xx0.img will have been your latest build.  When you run it again,
you will get 21004xx0.img.

21021o0.img was the latest build that OLPC ran.  It was build 21 of
12.1.0.

There's no technical reason to increase the build number to beyond the
build number that OLPC used; the file names are not processed.  These
are different version spaces, as identified by the
customization_tag=xx.  You may wish to set that tag to ht.

See olpc-os-builder modules/buildnr_from_file and buildnr_from_cfg
README files for how to control the build number.

See also
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_Process_Home#Version_numbering for
how the file numbering works.

There is no technical reason to use this numbering.  You could call
the build file ht7.img if you like, and it will still work.  Using the
convention does make it easier for people to understand the origin and
version of a build.

We limit to eight character file names because Open Firmware does not
have long file name support when using FAT formatted USB drive.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/