[etoys-dev] Build 47: Still Problem Updating to latest Etoys

[Milan Zimmermann]

On December 3, 2009, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 03.12.2009, at 04:23, Milan Zimmermann wrote:
> > but this is confusing because  /etc/olpc-release has "11.0.0" in it, and
> > there is no http://etoys.laptop.org/xo/11.0.0 (last .0 not there), amd I
> > assume it gets resolved by ending up on   http://etoys.laptop.org/xo ...
> > but nevermind.
> 
> The updater tries to use the most specific version it can find. For
>  "11.0.0" it tries this sequence:
> 
> http://etoys.laptop.org/xo/11.0.0
> http://etoys.laptop.org/xo/11.0
> http://etoys.laptop.org/xo

ah i see, thanks.

> 
> But since we do not have different versions for different Fedora 11 builds,
>  I only made the 11.0 one.
> 
> > > 	http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activities/G1G1/11.0

yes

> >
> > So you edit this for 113 to be picked up by the daily builds?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > > I just changed that to 113, so this should be in the next OLPC build.
> > > You  would have to use the USB method (osXY.zd) to verify this, since
> > >  olpc-update does not touch the activities I think.
> >
> > Well, it seems - it must be looking in
> > http://etoys.laptop.org/xo/
> >  at least the "Software Update" from "My Settings": I just did that and
> > got: Etoys: from version 100 to 113
> 
> "Software Update" is the activity updater, and yes it looks at that
>  update_url.
> 
> "olpc-update" is something completely different. It's a command-line
>  utility to upgrade the OS directly from within Linux, not using a USB
>  stick and the Firmware:
> 
> 	su
> 	olpc-update f11_xo1.5-51
> 
> It leaves the home directory alone and just updates the system. Hence it's
>  the preferred way of updating, the user's files are not touched.

yes, it updates the os but not activities etc. I used it previously on xo1

> 
> > > Additionally, if you use the Browse activity to visit the site, the
> > > server automatically chooses which version to display based on the
> > > Browser's Sugar version.
> >
> > Yaikes, the Broser rules them all? :) Actually I hope the
> > 	<em:minVersion>0.82</em:minVersion>
> > 	<em:maxVersion>0.82</em:maxVersion>
> > refers to the OS version
> 
> Yes. I think. It's supposed to be the Sugar version the browser is running
>  under. Type this into the address field to see your user agent:
> 
> 	javascript:navigator.userAgent

...OLPC/0.4.9-10.fc11(XO) ... not sure how that would relate to 0.86, 0.88 
etc, thought

> 
> >  > I'll send a separate mail about the activity version name changes in
> >  > Sugar
> > >
> > >  0.88. This is long enough already ;)
> >
> > 0.86 i think - cool, I will follow up...
> 
> No, 0.88 is what I meant. 0.86 was just released. 

ah , I see:http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_on_a_Stick/Blueberry

I misunderstood as 
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Sugar_Update_Control_ASLO talked about 
.86 I guess it got delayed.

> Now development on 0.88
>  started, and there is a long thread on the Sugar dev list about changing
>  the activity version numbers from a single integer to a more common
>  major.minor scheme. I'll hold off sending this other mail until the
>  discussion is settled (though you may start thinking about what version
>  numbers we'd like to use for the Etoys activity).

Do you meant to change the versioning from sequential (113, 114 etc) to 
something else, or just which Etoys version - 4.0, 4.1 (dr geo?) , 5.0 - to 
target for 0.88?

thanks,
Milan

> 
> - Bert -
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> etoys-dev mailing list
> etoys-dev at squeakland.org
> http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/etoys-dev
>