<div dir="ltr">I will try to answer some questions. But my last two points will only raise new ones. <ol><li>There are a few purposes for the community build. The first is that for a while, all the OLPC builds announced seemed to be private ones available upon request. It therefore was necessary to see if builds were still possible without the private extensions, and how well they worked. A second is that I actually build against a local mirror. This mirror was created back when it was uncertain if OLPC would keep the MIT servers, and expanded when said servers started running into problems. (These issues have since been resolved.) OLPC has and may still have an automatic backup; but I recall others having to stop it from accidentally pulling corrupted data in the past. Although it only has a subset of the public OLPC content available anonymously, building against my mirror makes sure that it still works and that it is periodically made up to date. </li><li>I have uploaded the .ini files I use to <a href="http://www.greenfeld.org/xo/community/builds/14.1.0/olpc-os-builder/">http://www.greenfeld.org/xo/community/builds/14.1.0/olpc-os-builder/</a> . But there is nothing in them that you could not derive from the olpc-14.1.0*.ini files already in olpc-os-builder. The .zd SD card image for XO-1 build 2 is next to it's .img file. I added a pause at the end of kspost.75.install_bundles.inc so I can tweak the XO-1 image and remove some of the larger activities. But this is temporary for debugging only. </li><li>Since I am based in the US, I cannot generate images with the multimedia items due to patents. At best I could give you instructions similar to how OLPC already does. I vaguely recall all XO-4's might be licensed for many multimedia codecs but it would be up to OLPC to make those images more widely available. </li><li>Personally I would argue that a CentOS or another long-term build may be the best approach for XOs. Sugar is in EPEL 6, and likely could be added to EPEL 7. It should surprise no one at this point that the list of personnel on OLPC's web site is years out of date. There may be more people working on XSCE at the moment than XO laptop software. Given the lack of personnel and resources I believe it would be best to do one final build for XO-1 through XO-4 based on a LTS distribution supported to at least 2020, and then only minor security/fixes after that. </li><li>OLPC already is looking beyond the XO, and beyond Fedora. If you look at <a href="http://dev.laptop.org">dev.laptop.org</a> closely, you might notice a bunch of tickets targeted for "su-15.1" as well as a new olpc-ubuntu-sugar-builder git tree meant for standard PCs. This appears to be an Sugar 0.104/Ubuntu 14.04 LTS build with anti-theft provided by a secure-boot-based EFI bootloader, not Open Firmware. While I am not thrilled that this has been done without the historical community's involvement, it likely matches the need of the XO Infinity or another client who currently pays the bills. It might be possible for this new builder to be eventually taught to handle XOs. But if OLPC is looking beyond the XO-4, perhaps it's time that Sugar do so as well. More information can be found at <a href="http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/12881">http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/12881</a> </li></ol></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:18 PM, James Cameron <<a href="mailto:quozl@laptop.org" target="_blank">quozl@laptop.org</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:49:47AM -0400, Adam Holt wrote: > They all seem to want a better browser and better codec support to > view various+sundry videos, within Sugar ideally, but if that's not > possible then within Gnome. One group per week asks me for the > above, above all else (often more than one deployment/group per > week). Why isn't this reaching me and the people who would do something about it? Please count these requests, deidentify and aggregate them, and report them monthly on devel@ or sugar-devel@ > But if CentOS is not realistically achievable, F22 might be more > appropriate, given it's final freeze is supposed to be less than 1 > week away? The size of this task (F22) has not yet been estimated, but based on Samuel's write up, my guess is between 10 and 50 engineer hours. There may be other problems lurking. The Fedora 20 port just on XO-4 has consumed way more than this. -- James Cameron <a href="http://quozl.linux.org.au/" target="_blank">http://quozl.linux.org.au/</a> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> </div></div></blockquote></div> </div>