[Sugar-devel] XO on Fedora 20 (was Re: [GSoC] Porting To Python3)

[Gonzalo Odiard]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12 May 2014 21:07, Gonzalo Odiard <godiard at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>
>> First, thanks for doing this work.
>>
>>
> Thanks for helping out.
>
>
>>   I would like to take a step back and understand a bit better where we
>>> want to go with this. Some random thoughts and questions.
>>>
>>> * To really understand how much work is left I think we need some good
>>> testing, especially on the hardware related bits. I expect there will be
>>> lots of small things to fix, but it would be good to understand as early as
>>> possible if there are roadblocks. I'm a bad tester and I've never used the
>>> XO much, so I'm often not sure what is a regression and what is not... thus
>>> helping with this would be particularly appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> This is a issue. If we have a Sugar with similar functionalities
>>  (settings and activities installed) we can request help from deployments
>> and volunteers.
>>
>
> Are you thinking to deployment specific settings and activities here? Or
> some kind of subset/reference that is good enough for all the interested
> deployments?
>

I think we should do a "generic" version. We can start with the activities
used by example in AU,
but add more based on deployment requests. In the xo-1 models space is a
issue,
but not so much in the others, and the benefit is have more testing.


>
>  * Are interested deployments using olpc-update? If I'm not mistake AU is
>>> not.
>>>
>>
>> We are not using it. I am pretty sure Nicaragua use it.
>>
>
> Is AU using yum?
>

Yes, we use a deamon calling yum with a particular configuration.
Recently I am testing dnf in F20, and I am impressed. If there are not
downsides,
could be nice use it.

Gonzalo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20140513/8a0e3649/attachment.html>