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

Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de
Thu Dec 3 05:00:50 EST 2009

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:


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
> >
> 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

"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:

	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.

> > 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:


>  > 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. 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).

- Bert -

More information about the etoys-dev mailing list