Forked packages for OLPC

[Daniel Drake]

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:28 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
> I took the liberty of organizing these a bit by topic:
> 
> > > ./gnash/OLPC-3
> > should not have been forked
> > > ./sugar-presence-service/OLPC-3
> > no longer using,  using F-9 packages now
> > > ./abiword/OLPC-3
> > should not be needed.  should be able  to use fedora's branch 
> > > ./ntp/OLPC-3
> > can be unforked,  changes were made to fedora's ntp,  drops perl
> > requirement
> > > ./pyabiword/OLPC-3
> > should not be needed.  should be able  to use fedora's branch 
> > > ./sugar-artwork/OLPC-3
> > no longer using,  using F-9 packages now
> > > ./sugar/OLPC-3
> > no longer using,  using F-9 packages now
> > > ./python-dotconf/OLPC-3
> > should not be needed.  should be able  to use fedora's branch 
> > > ./sugar-toolkit/OLPC-3
> > no longer using,  using F-9 packages now
> > > ./sugar-datastore/OLPC-3
> > no longer using,  using F-9 packages now
> > > ./sugar-base/OLPC-3
> > no longer using,  using F-9 packages now
> > > ./pygame/OLPC-3
> > should use fedora's
> 
> Is there anything that needs to be done for these?  Are they untagged
> in Koji so OLPC no longer builds against them?

Forks are still needed for some of these:
gnash was forked to bring dependencies down, I don't think we want those
deps back.

I'm happy to unfork ntp now that Fedora have made the same changes. How
can I do that?

pygame fork is needed. I have tried to get upstream to take our changes
so that we can unfork. No response yet.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457074


> > > ./texlive/OLPC-3
> > rebuild against the old poppler
> > > ./poppler/OLPC-3
> > using an old version not sure why.
> 
> Who can investigate poppler and maybe figure out what's up?

It should be easy to fix, but we seemed to reach consensus that it is
too late to upgrade this for our 8.2 release which we are rapidly
closing in on.

> > > ./dotconf/OLPC-3
> > not sure on this one
> 
> Who can investigate this?
> 
> 
> > > ./speech-dispatcher/OLPC-3
> > not sure on this one
> 
> Who can investigate this?

Dennis requested I look at these two, I will do so but have more
important things to work on first.


> > > ./NetworkManager/OLPC-3
> > we are using 0.6.x  there is work to move to 0.7 
> 
> Is this likely to be done in time for F10?

You'd have to ask the sugar developers.

> > ./xorg-x11-utils/OLPC-3
> > dropped some dependencies

We can drop this fork for F10 since Adam made the changes in the devel
branch.

> > > ./sugar-evince/OLPC-3
> > minimal evince for the XO,  should be in fedora and pulled in from
> > there
> > > ./SDL_mixer/OLPC-3
> > Droped perl
> > > ./gnome-python2/OLPC-3
> > needed to drop deps,  package should be split up some so that we can
> > use fedora's package
> > > ./olpcsound/OLPC-3
> > its a subset of csound for the XO,  we should make it so that csound
> > provides the minimal needs of OLPC
> > > ./gstreamer-plugins-base/OLPC-3
> > needed to drop perl dependency there is one plugin that pulls in perl
> > > ./gnome-vfs2/OLPC-3
> > needed to drop some dependencies
> 
> Are there BZ's filed for these so work can be done to split up the
> Fedora packages so OLPC can only take the smallest bits?

sugar-evince:
http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/7926
http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/7927

SDL_mixer: don't think so

gnome-python2: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456122

olpcsound: don't think so, but actually forking and providing seperate
source tarballs is what upstream have agreed to. I think we should just
build this in F-9 instead.

gstreamer-plugins-base: no bugzilla that I know of

gnome-vfs2: don't think so.

> > > ./totem/OLPC-3
> > need a minimal totem  that doesnt bring in perl and some gnome
> > libraries, F-9's  was horribly broken,  we are using totem from
> > rawhide
> > > ./totem-pl-parser/OLPC-3
> > needed version from rawhide to match totem.  it had better Requires
> 
> Is there a BZ to track this?

totem-pl-parser wasn't forked to match totem, it was instead forked to
drop a humongous dependency chain.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456113 
I don't see this being fixed upstream or in Fedora any time soon:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=522639

Thanks,
Daniel