From mavrothal at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 19 16:29:04 2018
From: mavrothal at yahoo.com (Yioryos Asprobounitis)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:29:04 -0000
Subject: [Testing] OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
In-Reply-To: <945A1965-2BB7-4DDF-97B8-2CD4B1860C7B@laptop.org>
Message-ID: <350205.31703.qm@web65506.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>



--- On Sun, 8/8/10, Ed McNierney <ed at laptop.org> wrote:

> From: Ed McNierney <ed at laptop.org>
> Subject: Re: OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis" <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Fedora OLPC" <fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com>, "Chris Ball" <cjb at laptop.org>, "Devel" <devel at lists.laptop.org>, testing at lists.laptop.org
> Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 5:51 PM
> no, there is planned printing
> support in 10.1.2 or later.  I have not heard of anyone
> interested in working on it, either.
> 
>     - Ed

OK thanks
Let me repeat the original question though because will all this issues your response generated, I'm afraid will be lost. 
People already think that the issue is yum and skype (when is really "yum update" or "yum install etoys") but for which a ticket already exists anyway.
The important question besides printing that you addressed is  wifi access occasionally disappearing from the build when you switch back and forth to gnome, requiring re-installation.
Where should someone look for relevant problem info if this reappears, so a ticket can be filed?



      

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel at lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


From wad at laptop.org  Tue Jun 19 16:29:35 2018
From: wad at laptop.org (John Watlington)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:29:35 -0000
Subject: [Testing] OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
In-Reply-To: <53332.72441.qm@web65511.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <53332.72441.qm@web65511.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <038B9402-7C86-4CF7-B6EC-8F76EBA928BB@laptop.org>


Please file a trac ticket on this, as you are flooding the mailing
list with your bug.   (This may be one of several known and
fixed hardware problems, or not...)

wad

On Aug 8, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:

> --- On Sun, 8/8/10, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org>
>> Subject: Re: OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
>> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis" <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "Fedora OLPC" <fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com>, "Chris Ball" <cjb at laptop.org>, "Devel" <devel at lists.laptop.org>, testing at lists.laptop.org
>> Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 8:16 PM
>> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:41:32AM
>> -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
>>> Wifi "disappearing" after switching back and forth
>> from sugar to gnome.
>> 
>> I've not tried to track down the original problem report
>> that you are
>> referring to, but Sugar and GNOME manage connection to an
>> access point
>> without reference to each other, so switching between the
>> desktop
>> environments will certainly cause one of the following:
>> 
>> 1.  loss of association and then reassociation within
>> about 35 seconds,
>> (because NetworkManager is told to disconnect as one
>> desktop wraps up,
>> and then told to connect as the other desktop starts up),
>> 
>> 2.  loss of association and no reassociation (the
>> other desktop hasn't
>> been told to trust the access point).
>> 
>>> This happened to me too and I thought was an issue
>> with the
>>> olpc-update I did at the time. I then clean installed
>> and since then
>>> works fine but something must be there.
>> 
>> My guess is that you weren't aware of the separate storage
>> for trusted
>> or known access points.  Once you've selected an
>> access point in both
>> desktops, it will appear to work as you expect.
>> 
>> This is a Sugar enhancement request.
>> http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1884
>> (use system settings instead of user settings for
>> NetworkManager)
>> 
> 
> The issue is not loss of an access point, and in my case at least, connection was established in both environments before lost during the switch.
> The issue is I lost eth0 altogether both from sugar and gnome. Mesh was fine. Rebooting didn't solve it. Reinstalling did (till now)
> 
>> -- 
>> James Cameron
>> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> olpc mailing list
> olpc at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/olpc
> 

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel at lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


From quozl at laptop.org  Tue Jun 19 16:29:48 2018
From: quozl at laptop.org (James Cameron)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:29:48 -0000
Subject: [Testing] OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
In-Reply-To: <53332.72441.qm@web65511.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <20100809001630.GF3470@us.netrek.org>
 <53332.72441.qm@web65511.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20100809004451.GI3470@us.netrek.org>

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 05:37:14PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> The issue is not loss of an access point, and in my case at least,
> connection was established in both environments before lost during the
> switch.
> The issue is I lost eth0 altogether both from sugar and gnome. Mesh
> was fine. Rebooting didn't solve it. Reinstalling did (till now)

I'm presuming XO-1.5.  Normally in a bug I'd scroll up to find that out,
since everything about a problem is in one place ... but I don't have
that luxury in e-mail.  If rebooting didn't solve it, then it is likely
to be electrostatic damage to the wireless device.

You can prove that by:

1.  checking for the wireless device using "ifconfig eth0" in the text
root console,

2.  checking for success of the "scan-wifi" command in OpenFirmware.

The fix is replacing the wireless device.

What do you mean "Mesh was fine?"

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel at lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


From quozl at laptop.org  Tue Jun 19 16:32:43 2018
From: quozl at laptop.org (James Cameron)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:32:43 -0000
Subject: [Testing] OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
In-Reply-To: <4C5F6D6C.2000407@bga.com>
References: <20100805184520.32223FA9A1@dev.laptop.org>
 <133762.54972.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
 <20100809001630.GF3470@us.netrek.org> <4C5F6D6C.2000407@bga.com>
Message-ID: <20100809035135.GR3470@us.netrek.org>

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:52:28PM -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> > switching between the desktop
> > environments will certainly cause one of the following:
> > ... 
> > 2.  loss of association and no reassociation (the other desktop hasn't
> > been told to trust the access point).
> 
> When phrases such as "trust the access point" start being used, I have
> great difficulty understanding how "wifi with a choice of access points"
> is supposed to work.  If I want to use an access point, why does the XO
> need to be told to "trust" that access point ?

Entirely my phrasing you are criticising.  There's no terminology
defined on the neighbourhood view ... you click on an access point icon
and a connection is attempted.  In my phrasing, that's a trust.  In the
code the terminology is the creation of a Settings object for the access point,
and the object is sent to NetworkManager as an NMSettings through a
NewConnection message.  As a result, the access point is added to the
list of connections in .sugar/default/nm/connections.cfg, and a badge is
added on the screen to the access point icon, the badge is called
"emblem-favorite" (sic).  If you have a better phrasing, let me know.

> How do I tell my XO: "Trust 'Joe' more than 'Sam'" ?

No way to do that in the current Sugar 0.84 without writing additional
software.

Once Joe and Sam are trusted, badged, connected to, favourites, or used,
whatever your terminology choice, then the first one that was trusted
will be used if it is available.  If it is not, then the second one will
be used.  So you can almost reach the goal you described if you are
willing to change it to "Connect to 'Joe' before you try to connect to
'Sam'".

If you use the "Discard network history" button, all access points
become untrusted.  So you can almost reach the goal you described if you
are willing to shorten it to "Trust 'Joe' and not 'Sam'".

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel at lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


From tomeu at sugarlabs.org  Tue Jun 19 16:33:43 2018
From: tomeu at sugarlabs.org (Tomeu Vizoso)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:33:43 -0000
Subject: [Testing] OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
In-Reply-To: <20100809001630.GF3470@us.netrek.org>
References: <20100805184520.32223FA9A1@dev.laptop.org>
 <133762.54972.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> 
 <20100809001630.GF3470@us.netrek.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik7t2F7DcUGN-geAXnUovxx10zE6K78TDLTaD_2@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 02:16, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:41:32AM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
>> Wifi "disappearing" after switching back and forth from sugar to gnome.
>
> I've not tried to track down the original problem report that you are
> referring to, but Sugar and GNOME manage connection to an access point
> without reference to each other, so switching between the desktop
> environments will certainly cause one of the following:
>
> 1.  loss of association and then reassociation within about 35 seconds,
> (because NetworkManager is told to disconnect as one desktop wraps up,
> and then told to connect as the other desktop starts up),
>
> 2.  loss of association and no reassociation (the other desktop hasn't
> been told to trust the access point).

Just a heads up that this is in its way to be fixed for NM 0.9 (and
we'll need to adapt to API changes again):

http://live.gnome.org/NetworkManager/RemovingUserSettings

Regards,

Tomeu

>> This happened to me too and I thought was an issue with the
>> olpc-update I did at the time. I then clean installed and since then
>> works fine but something must be there.
>
> My guess is that you weren't aware of the separate storage for trusted
> or known access points.  Once you've selected an access point in both
> desktops, it will appear to work as you expect.
>
> This is a Sugar enhancement request.
> http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1884
> (use system settings instead of user settings for NetworkManager)
>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
> _______________________________________________
> olpc mailing list
> olpc at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/olpc
>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel at lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


From wad at laptop.org  Tue Jun 19 16:33:46 2018
From: wad at laptop.org (John Watlington)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:33:46 -0000
Subject: [Testing] OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
In-Reply-To: <4C5F6D6C.2000407@bga.com>
References: <20100805184520.32223FA9A1@dev.laptop.org>	<133762.54972.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
 <20100809001630.GF3470@us.netrek.org> <4C5F6D6C.2000407@bga.com>
Message-ID: <3D9751F3-213D-4CEA-BBD0-ADB6FD4A9803@laptop.org>


Mikus,
   OLPC/Sugarlabs did not introduce that terminology.
Take your wrath out on Linux and Apple (and possibly
M$, I don't use Windows enough to know if they have
also adopted that phrase.)

My Mac doesn't ask if I want to "use" an AP, it asks me
if I "trust" an AP.   It then remembers that AP as "trusted".

Cheers,
wad

On Aug 8, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:

>> switching between the desktop
>> environments will certainly cause one of the following:
>> ... 
>> 2.  loss of association and no reassociation (the other desktop hasn't
>> been told to trust the access point).
> 
> When phrases such as "trust the access point" start being used, I have
> great difficulty understanding how "wifi with a choice of access points"
> is supposed to work.  If I want to use an access point, why does the XO
> need to be told to "trust" that access point ?
> 
> How do I tell my XO: "Trust 'Joe' more than 'Sam'" ?
> 
> Thanks,  mikus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel at lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


From quozl at laptop.org  Tue Jun 19 16:34:08 2018
From: quozl at laptop.org (James Cameron)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:34:08 -0000
Subject: [Testing] OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
In-Reply-To: <133762.54972.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <20100805184520.32223FA9A1@dev.laptop.org>
 <133762.54972.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20100809001630.GF3470@us.netrek.org>

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:41:32AM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> Wifi "disappearing" after switching back and forth from sugar to gnome.

I've not tried to track down the original problem report that you are
referring to, but Sugar and GNOME manage connection to an access point
without reference to each other, so switching between the desktop
environments will certainly cause one of the following:

1.  loss of association and then reassociation within about 35 seconds,
(because NetworkManager is told to disconnect as one desktop wraps up,
and then told to connect as the other desktop starts up),

2.  loss of association and no reassociation (the other desktop hasn't
been told to trust the access point).

> This happened to me too and I thought was an issue with the
> olpc-update I did at the time. I then clean installed and since then
> works fine but something must be there.

My guess is that you weren't aware of the separate storage for trusted
or known access points.  Once you've selected an access point in both
desktops, it will appear to work as you expect.

This is a Sugar enhancement request.
http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1884
(use system settings instead of user settings for NetworkManager)

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel at lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


From quozl at laptop.org  Tue Jun 19 16:34:09 2018
From: quozl at laptop.org (James Cameron)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:34:09 -0000
Subject: [Testing] OLPC 10.1.2 Release Candidate 1
In-Reply-To: <350205.31703.qm@web65506.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <945A1965-2BB7-4DDF-97B8-2CD4B1860C7B@laptop.org>
 <350205.31703.qm@web65506.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20100809001939.GG3470@us.netrek.org>

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 05:08:48PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
> Where should someone look for relevant problem info if this reappears,
> so a ticket can be filed?

It depends on how the problem is reported.  Best thing is a description
of the steps that lead to the problem, including each user action.  If
the person reporting the bug is unwilling to invest in such a
description, then just post what you can to the bug tracker and a
developer will ask questions to satisfy the missing pieces.

There is no single place that I can say "look here".  Bug reporting and
processing is a two-way street, communication and followup is required.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel at lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel