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

Milan Zimmermann milan.zimmermann at sympatico.ca
Wed Dec 2 22:23:51 EST 2009

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.


Thanks for the details as always. 

I added  link to your post


in etoys_development wiki:


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


> 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 


 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

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...


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakland.org/pipermail/etoys-dev/attachments/20091202/7b5e5ed8/attachment-0001.html

More information about the etoys-dev mailing list