--- On Mon, 4/12/10, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis" <mavrothal(a)yahoo.com>
Cc: "Bernie Innocenti" <bernie(a)codewiz.org>, "Devel"
<devel(a)lists.laptop.org>, "Fedora OLPC"
<fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com>
Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 3:56 PM
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:40 PM,
Yioryos Asprobounitis
<mavrothal(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
> --- On Mon, 4/12/10, Bernie Innocenti <bernie(a)codewiz.org>
wrote:
>
>> From: Bernie Innocenti <bernie(a)codewiz.org>
>> Subject: Re: New XO-1.5 10.2.0 build 119
>> To: "Peter Robinson" <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Devel" <devel(a)lists.laptop.org>,
"Fedora OLPC" <fedora-olpc-list(a)redhat.com>
>> Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 9:15 AM
>> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 17:57 +0100,
>> Peter Robinson wrote:
>> > >> Finally, I guess you have thought of
it, but
>> by the
>> > >> time 10.2 will be out F11
repositories will
>> be down
>> > >> and thus the builds totally frozen
>> software-wise.
>> > >
>> > > I think it would have been better to
rebase on
>> F12 6 months ago.
>> > > Now it's way too close to the release
date :-(
>> >
>> > I recommended F-12 which was in beta when
this process
>> started but was
>> > ignored. I noticed the other day that dsd has
created
>> a F-12 branch in
>> > git but I think we should be aiming straight
for F-13
>> now. It'll be
>> > out in a little over a month, is quite stable
already
>> and have will be
>> > supported for another 14 months.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> F13, btw, seems like a very solid release to me.
>
> I do not know why re-basing on F13 will reach
deployment status much faster than F11 and will not be at
the same point a year from now.
> The XO is a _production_ machine. Makes no sense to
run development/short-lived OS. Maybe the RHEL/CentOS idea
should not be dismissed, if feasible.
In the longer term its likely that it will be. The
libraries in CentOS
5 are too old. The problem is that RHEL-6 isn't out yet,
nor is there
any announcements when it will be, then from there the
CentOS team
need to review, engineer, QA and release CentOS 6. Then you
need to
build/test/QA sugar etc for it.
It will then be OK for a while until Sugar needs a newer
version of a
library that is static on CentOS due to the support
requirements. And
then it reverts to Fedora. And before you mention Ubuntu
LTS, the
previous LTS has the same version issues, the current one
will still
have the same problems going forward.
Maybe so, but the fact is that "going forward" actually means that the XOs are
still running F9, and hopping to get an EOL F11 in the next few months.
So at the end of the day this "needed library" is not actually used by the vast
majority of the actual users.
I repeat that the XO, and education in general, is/needs _production_ machines. Given the
resources and the development rate, a 3-4 years OS support should be the minimum I think,
even if the feature requiring "that library" is not implemented.
Just my 2c.
Peter