On December 2, 2009, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 02.12.2009, at 07:16, Milan Zimmermann wrote:
> > On November 30, 2009, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> > > The .xo bundle did not change at all between these versions (in fact,
> > > not for a year or so). The only file that changes in it is the NEWS
> > > file. I should stop updating the bundle because it is unnecessary - new
> > > etoys versions for the XO require a new rpm, not a new xo bundle. I
> > > just don't have a good idea what the versioning scheme for the bundle
> > > should look like.
> >
> > I guess Etoys.activity (and everything below) should typically remain the
> > same for future releases
>
> Yes.
>
Bert,
Thanks for the details as always.
I added link to your post
http://n2.nabble.com/etoys-dev-Fwd-New-F11-for-XO-1-5-build-47-tp4082753p4082753.html
in etoys_development wiki:
http://wiki.squeakland.org/display/sq/Creating+Etoys+Release+for+Squeakland%2C+OLPC%2C+or+Etoys-to-go
Sounds from your paragraph below they are changing the versioning for 0.86, so I will not worry much about the current one, but still a few notes below inline (ok i made it long again it seems):
> > , but does that mean the os and the activity updater is ignoring version
> > numbers from the activity.info?
>
> No, why?
I misunderstood. Updater must be using it to print the "from" version. Today, updating activities says:
Etoys: from version 100 to 113
>
> > I understand from here:
> > http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9459
> > that the version number stored in /etc/olpc-release defines that the
> > updater will look into http://etoys.laptop.org/xo/11.0 for the version
> > number corresponding to that release. But the link points to 108 - as you
> > said I assume that should be updated but probably does not matter, but
> > how does the activity updater in control panel know where to look for the
> > latest version, does it simply look for the latest Etoys-ijk.xo in
> > http://etoys.laptop.org/rpms/?C=M;O=D
> > ?.
>
> No, the updater looks in
>
> http://etoys.laptop.org/xo/11.0
>
> because our activity.info file specifies update_url as
>
> http://etoys.laptop.org/xo
>
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.
> If you examine its HTML source code you can see the embedded "micro format"
> annotations:
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activity_microformat
>
> If the updater finds multiple of these annotations it would use the
> highest-numbered, but on the Etoys page we only have one.
>
> Here is a description of update_url:
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activity_Bundles#.info_file_format
yes
>
> I think deployments can override the update_url so they can provide their
> own versions. This also gets used if a bundle does not specify its own
> update_url.
>
> And, the pre-installed activity versions for F11 is looked up here:
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activities/G1G1/11.0
>
So you edit this for 113 to be picked up by the daily builds?
> 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
>
> > Anyway, I do not understand the XO activity versioning, and whether to
> > report any problem with the updater, in the 46 version it was reporting
> > wrong versions on update, but now is fine, without any of the numbers (in
> > activity.info, /etc/olpc-release, and http://etoys.laptop.org/xo/11.0)
> > being changed....
>
> What version did it report?
This was 3 days ago. Reported 100 to 108 because the site was not updated I assume. Today, 100 to 113, correct (well the target number).
>
> If I run the updater on my machine now, it does not report a new version. I
> have 108 installed.
Hmm, are you running from command line or My Settings?
>
> Actually, I have to change the version now. So it should update to 113 next
> time you run the activity updater.
yes, it did
>
> > Sorry for these long questions, ignore it unless there is a simple known
> > explanation :) Thanks,
> > Milan
>
> I thought it's pretty simple, but seeing it written down makes obvious it
> isn't. And it's not even the full story yet. Read on for the future, not
> sure yet if it will simplify or complicate matters.
>
> Sugar 0.86 introduces a totally different updater. IIUC, it ignores the
> bundle's update_url and only looks for the latest version on
>
> http://activities.sugarlabs.org/
>
> For that the updater does not use the micro-format HTML annotations but an
> XML format:
>
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Sugar_Update_Control_ASLO
>
> 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
>
> So for that to work I had to additionally specify which Etoys bundle
> version to use for which Sugar release:
>
> http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addons/versions/4030
>
> Phew. I hope I covered all the scattered pieces ...
:) how do you remember all this .. it's a full time work ...
>
> 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...
Thanks
>
> - Bert -
>
> _______________________________________________
> etoys-dev mailing list
> etoys-dev@squeakland.org
> http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/etoys-dev
>