[IAEP] [ANNOUNCE] Sucrose 0.84 Release Candidate 1 (0.83.5)
info at skierpage.com
Tue Feb 17 03:28:40 EST 2009
(I cc'd the sugarlabs lists for repliers but am not on them.)
Simon Schampijer wrote:
> Dear Sugar Community,
> This is Release Candidate 1 for the upcoming 0.84 Release - see  for
> more details. Only two more weeks to go in this release cycle. Please
> test this release
How? I have an XO-1 with developer key. Back in January Gary C Martin
wrote in "Re: [ANNOUNCE] Sucrose 0.83.4 Development Release" ,
> FWIW: I've been reasonably successfully running joyride 2631 on an XO
> for a few days now, and it seems to have all the 0.83.4 Sugar
> feature freeze changes in.
but the latest joyride (build 2654 dated 2009-02-14 -- Valentine's day
:-) ) hasn't got these newer Sugar packages, see
Maybe that's to be expected since Daniel Drake wrote in "Re: joyride,
staging builds, sugar releases":
> [Joyrides =>] Obsolete, but not really obsoleted by anything usable *yet*.
Should I just bunzip/untar the newer sugar packages on my XO? I
couldn't find any guide to doing this on sugarlabs.org (surely there
must be one!?), and are there permission-security-/versions/pristine
issues unique to the XO in doing this? And are the sugar packages
compatible with joyride or with the 8.2.1 candidate-800 build, or both?
NN said in the *very* interesting
> OLPC will move to a Linux desktop that will run Sugar as an application
So should I ignore OLPC's OS images and instead try one of the XO Linux
distributions that includes Sugar? I looked around and couldn't figure
out whether Fedora rawhide still has problems on XO, whether DebXO has
Sucrose 0.84, etc. Marco Pesenti Gritti announced "Fwd: Another Soas
image for the XO", but the latest image at
http://download.sugarlabs.org/soas/xoimages/ predates this Sucrose release.
Daniel Drake went on to say
> As for the future, the hope is that we will have a
> similarly-functional OS that includes the latest version of sugar
> asap. OLPC is working with Fedora on this, and while I suspect that
> the end result will be pushed as a "reference OS" by OLPC, there are
> also some other efforts ..., including debXO, and a possibility of
> the community taking the 8.2 OS release and adding sugar-0.84 and
> some other things as an intermediate step before the pure-Fedora
> builds are suitable replacements. However, I personally think that
> all of these efforts are 6-12 months away (at least) from producing
> something adoptable by deployments.
But there's a mismatch between sugarlabs' "only two more weeks to go in
this release cycle. Please test" and OLPC's "6-12 months away".
Thanks for any suggestions.
(Normally this is where I pledge to update wiki.laptop.org with whatever
people say, but if joyride is obsolete and 9.1.0 is dead, then a lot of
pages on the wiki are misleading and I'm not sure where to start.)
P.S. belated Valentine's day: XO-1 <3 XOXO @}-`-,--
More information about the IAEP