Oops XO-2 should say XO 1.5, my bad.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Kevin Gordon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kgordon420@gmail.com">kgordon420@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Folks:<br><br>Wasn't really complaining. Just wanted upstream people to know in case they were interested.<br><br>For clarity, The 686 8n-1 openssl gets installed on both the XO-1 and the XO-1.5. After a fresh install:<br>
<br>Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-1 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but installs the 586 version<br>Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-2 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but installs the 686 version<br><br>In our deployments we always try to do it in two steps, a yum update download-only to an SD card, then yum localinstall from the card, to save internet usage.<br>
<br>In this two-step localinstall scenario, the XO-1 updated chosen (586) actually refuses to update the installed older, but 686, version.<br><br>On the XO 1.5, there is no issue - the 686 8n-2 updates the installed 686 8n-1<br>
<br>Peter, absoulutely the right rpm switches can be used instead of yum to get the desired one there when not doing a direct update. The other yum methods are dangerous or ineffective since on the XO-1,a yum reinstall wont pick up the original package, and a vanilla yum remove would delete about 3.5 million dependencies. That said, if I copy the 686 8n-2 rpm over to the XO-1 downloaded updates on the SD, when doing the localinstall, it works fine.<br>
<br>So, I am not complaining, I was more or less curious as to why a 686 was in there at all, since all the rest of the stuff int the package list seems to be 586, and there is a 586 openssl available. Perhaps, I too much love simplicity :-) <br>
<br>But, in conclusion, I'm all good here. If there is a specific bias for one or the other (586 or 686) package, just let me know and I can make both the XO-1 and the XO 1.5 happy with that version.<br><br>PS: Martin, we haven't deployed 852 in Kenya so I hadn't seen this before in 10.1.2. We'll be upgrading them all from a mixed XO-1 set of 711 and 802; and the 1.5's with 205/206 both of which never had the 686 installed. So, in preparation of when we go back in March, we're working with 10.1.3/3xx assuming that it will be the new signed build generation.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br><font color="#888888"><br>KG</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Peter Robinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pbrobinson@gmail.com" target="_blank">pbrobinson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div>On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Martin Langhoff<br>
<<a href="mailto:martin.langhoff@gmail.com" target="_blank">martin.langhoff@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Kevin Gordon <<a href="mailto:kgordon420@gmail.com" target="_blank">kgordon420@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Any reason that the openssl 0.9.8n-1.fc11 is of the 686 architecture as<br>
>> bundled in the os360 packages? Causes a bit of grief on localinstalls and<br>
><br>
> This was also on 10.1.2 as can be seen in the link below . The<br>
> compaints are bogus my understanding is that -- Fedora keeps its i686<br>
> builds compatible with Geode. Why is yum getting confused I dunno --<br>
> perhaps it's reading the kernel uname. On XO-1 builds, the kernel is<br>
> i586.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://download.laptop.org/xo-1.5/os/official/os852/4GB/os852.packages.txt" target="_blank">http://download.laptop.org/xo-1.5/os/official/os852/4GB/os852.packages.txt</a><br>
><br>
> cheers,<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think the change to the rpm arch file that made geode i686<br>
capable was made until post F-11 (F-12 from mem) so I think you need<br>
to add a command to rpm to use the i686 version or install the<br>
i586/i386 variant.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Peter<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>