Changes

== Discussion ==

== Discussion ==

# Should SoaS2's software artifacts include a XO-1 NAND .img/crc file at all?

* Should SoaS2's software artifacts include a XO-1 NAND .img/crc file at all?

:This would allow people to not have to convert the Soas2 .iso to a NAND .img (or to transfer the .iso to a USB key and run liveinst after booting from that stick).

 

# Should Soas2's software artifacts include non-Fedora (that is, non-upstream) bits or yum repositories?  For example: a) OLPC kernel (2.6.25); or b) via wireless drivers?

:This would allow people to not have to convert the Soas2 .iso to a NAND .img (or to transfer the .iso to a USB key and run liveinst after booting from that stick).

:Though (and this is potentially a big "though") these bits/repos must be supported by SugarLabs without any upstream assistance (this statement is a bit less equivocal than strictly necessary), they would provide a solution with a lot more working features.  For example, it's hard to imagine an accepted XO-1 solution without power management, or an accepted Eee (is that Via???) solution without wireless.  However, these may not be enough of SoaS's target audience to merit the additional work.

 

* Should Soas2's software artifacts include non-Fedora (that is, non-upstream) bits or yum repositories?  For example: a) OLPC kernel (2.6.25); or b) via wireless drivers?

 

:Though (and this is potentially a big "though") these bits/repos must be supported by SugarLabs without any upstream assistance (this statement is a bit less equivocal than strictly necessary), they would provide a solution with a lot more working features.  For example, it's hard to imagine an accepted XO-1 solution without power management, or an accepted Eee (is that Via???) solution without wireless.  However, these may not be enough of SoaS's target audience to merit the additional work.

== Background ==

== Background ==