[Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Sugar 0.88 for the XO-1

[David Farning]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Tim McNamara
<paperless at timmcnamara.co.nz> wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88
>> > for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments,
>> > although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features
>> > developed in Uruguay.
>> >
>> > Full details are here:
>> >
>> >  http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes
>>
>> Is F-11 still the base OS for this?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> Just for my knowledge, does Fedora have an equivalent to Ubuntu's long-term
> support releases?
> Without thinking too deeply about the implications, it make sense (to me) to
> peg XO development to something that's stable over a few years. That way
> package versions etc will be widely known and consistent.
> /me reads [1]. Apparently not. Is there anyway to achieve
> something similar without needing to pay for RHEL, which is probably a bit
> of an overkill?

This is going to be one of the largest challenges.  From Redhat's
point of view, Fedora is an innovative upstream.  when we land on a
specific Fedora versions we will have to make the commitment to
support it for a specific period of time.

On the bright side Sugar on Fedora on the XO is self limiting to a
very small set of hardware and a reasonably small set of packages.

Expensive but not prohibitive.

david

> Best regards,
> Tim McNamara
> @timClicks
> [1]
>  http://news.cnet.com/Long-term-Fedora-Linux-support-ending/2100-7344_3-6146604.html
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>