Mikus Grinbergs | 1 Jan 11:44 2011

olpc-utils for new 10.1.3 builds

Among the package changes for build os359:

| -olpc-utils-1.0.31-1.fc11.i586
| +olpc-utils-1.0.36-1.fc11.i586

Yet build os360 (and os360a and os360b) was built with olpc-utils
version 1.0.31-1.  Is that the result of a deliberate decision that
10.1.3 would NOT include those higher-numbered olpc-utils versions ?

mikus
James Cameron | 3 Jan 01:04 2011

Re: olpc-utils for new 10.1.3 builds

On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 04:44:39AM -0600, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> Among the package changes for build os359:
> 
> | -olpc-utils-1.0.31-1.fc11.i586
> | +olpc-utils-1.0.36-1.fc11.i586
> 
> Yet build os360 (and os360a and os360b) was built with olpc-utils
> version 1.0.31-1.

I confirm your observation.

> Is that the result of a deliberate decision that 10.1.3 would NOT
> include those higher-numbered olpc-utils versions ?

I don't know, sorry.

--

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
Jerry Vonau | 3 Jan 08:04 2011
Picon

Re: olpc-utils for new 10.1.3 builds

On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 11:04 +1100, James Cameron wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 04:44:39AM -0600, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> > Among the package changes for build os359:
> > 
> > | -olpc-utils-1.0.31-1.fc11.i586
> > | +olpc-utils-1.0.36-1.fc11.i586
> > 
> > Yet build os360 (and os360a and os360b) was built with olpc-utils
> > version 1.0.31-1.
> 
> I confirm your observation.
> 

Just like to point out os360 does have use the newer olpc-utils: 

os359 has olpc-utils-1.0.36-1 16-Dec-2010
http://build.laptop.org/10.1.3/xo-1.5/os359/os359.packages.txt

os360 has olpc-utils-1.0.36-1 21-Dec-2010
http://build.laptop.org/10.1.3/xo-1.5/os360/os360.packages.txt

os360a has olpc-utils-1.0.31.1 27-Dec-2010
http://build.laptop.org/10.1.3/xo-1.5/os360a/os360a.packages.txt

os360b has olpc-utils-1.0.31.1 30-Dec-2010
http://build.laptop.org/10.1.3/xo-1.5/os360b/os360b.packages.txt

Based on the dates of the builds, the commit here:  
http://dev.laptop.org/git/projects/olpc-os-builder/commit/?id=d9970cf52f1ad61c12333071ea80da473691d56e

(Continue reading)

Sameer Verma | 3 Jan 09:31 2011

Will 10.1.3 become 11.1.1?

Given that 10.1.3 is still beta and we are now in 2011, will it become 11.1.1?

cheers,
Sameer
Samuel Greenfeld | 3 Jan 15:25 2011

Re: Will 10.1.3 become 11.1.1?

I believe we intend to stick with 10.1.3 and reserve 11.x for the next 
version (which ideally will be Fedora 14 based).

On 01/03/11 03:31, Sameer Verma wrote:
> Given that 10.1.3 is still beta and we are now in 2011, will it become 11.1.1?
>
> cheers,
> Sameer
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel <at> lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Daniel Drake | 3 Jan 16:58 2011

Re: olpc-utils for new 10.1.3 builds

On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 01:04 -0600, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> > > Is that the result of a deliberate decision that 10.1.3 would NOT
> > > include those higher-numbered olpc-utils versions ?
> 
> I'd like to know too,

Sorry for the confusion. The 1.0.31-1 that you see now is actually newer
than anything that was called 1.0.36.

olpc-utils was forked after 1.0.30 (initially without me knowing),
creating a separate branch of development, and the version number was
incremented in this branch (rather than simply adding a new numerical
component or incrementing the -1 part, which would be the more
conventional way to fork).

Then when I merged in the changes made in that branch (plus some tweaks)
into mainline, I just incremented the version from the last official one
(1.0.30 --> 1.0.31) to make the new official release.

In hindsight I should have probably jumped to 1.0.37 but I hadn't noted
well that the fork had bumped the version in this manner. Hopefully the
forking won't happen again anyhow...

In summary, the 1.0.31-1 version in the mock repos is the one to use
(and is correctly included in the latest 10.1.3 builds).

Daniel
Daniel Drake | 3 Jan 17:19 2011

Re: Will 10.1.3 become 11.1.1?

On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 00:31 -0800, Sameer Verma wrote:
> Given that 10.1.3 is still beta and we are now in 2011, will it become 11.1.1?

No, because 10.1.3 is a point release in the 10.1 series. Similarly,
8.2.1 was released in 2009.

Daniel
Mikus Grinbergs | 3 Jan 19:22 2011

Re: olpc-utils for new 10.1.3 builds

> In summary, the 1.0.31-1 version in the mock repos is the one to use
> (and is correctly included in the latest 10.1.3 builds).

Thank you.

Rather than wait for a new build, I tend to use yum (or rpm) to apply
updated packages as they become available.  When different repositories
contain differently-sequenced versions of a given package, it helps me
to learn which version contains the "most recent" code.

mikus
Simon Schampijer | 3 Jan 20:26 2011
Picon

Re: Will 10.1.3 become 11.1.1?

On 01/03/2011 05:19 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 00:31 -0800, Sameer Verma wrote:
>> Given that 10.1.3 is still beta and we are now in 2011, will it become 11.1.1?
>
> No, because 10.1.3 is a point release in the 10.1 series. Similarly,
> 8.2.1 was released in 2009.
>
> Daniel

Yes, like Daniel said, we stick to the naming as 10.1.3 even if the 
final release build will be in 2011.

Regards,
    Simon
Peter Robinson | 3 Jan 22:37 2011
Picon

Re: olpc-utils for new 10.1.3 builds

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd <at> laptop.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 01:04 -0600, Jerry Vonau wrote:
>> > > Is that the result of a deliberate decision that 10.1.3 would NOT
>> > > include those higher-numbered olpc-utils versions ?
>>
>> I'd like to know too,
>
> Sorry for the confusion. The 1.0.31-1 that you see now is actually newer
> than anything that was called 1.0.36.
>
> olpc-utils was forked after 1.0.30 (initially without me knowing),
> creating a separate branch of development, and the version number was
> incremented in this branch (rather than simply adding a new numerical
> component or incrementing the -1 part, which would be the more
> conventional way to fork).
>
> Then when I merged in the changes made in that branch (plus some tweaks)
> into mainline, I just incremented the version from the last official one
> (1.0.30 --> 1.0.31) to make the new official release.
>
> In hindsight I should have probably jumped to 1.0.37 but I hadn't noted
> well that the fork had bumped the version in this manner. Hopefully the
> forking won't happen again anyhow...
>
> In summary, the 1.0.31-1 version in the mock repos is the one to use
> (and is correctly included in the latest 10.1.3 builds).

It should probably then either have a more major version bump (1.1?)
or in the least have an epoch added to the rpm so upgrades will happen
properly so people that made it to 1.0.3[2-6] don't end up with
(Continue reading)


Gmane