Kernel boot logo needs to include fedora logo

[kimquirk]

The XO needs to show Fedora branding during both graphical (pretty) and textual boots

RH will provide the details.

This bug is for textual boot only; the graphical boot portion has been split to ticket #9140.

[pfrields]

https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/2/29/Fedora_secondary_logo_draft_guidelines.png

The logo is ready. We recommend that OLPC use a version in Fedora Blue if possible. Please let us know about specific needs for size, format, etc., by emailing me and/or Greg DeKoenigsberg.

[Eben]

There's certainly no room for branding on the Home screen; it simply isn't afforded by the design of the Sugar UI, which doesn't have the usual chrome that normal desktops have. However, I think we could find a place for it during boot, and also in the "About this XO" module of the control panel, where other technical and license details are shown.

I also have contention with showing the logo in color, as color has a privileged place in the Sugar UI, and is particularly important in the boot up sequence. I notice that they do offer an all-black version of the logo. My initial thought was to use a strictly typographic treatment, but perhaps we can negotiate to render their provided logo in an a 50% gray. (We could show it in color in the settings, perhaps.)

I also see Greg D. on the contact list. Perhaps I (or a group of us) could briefly chat about the possibilities while he's here for the week.

[edmcnierney]

Proposed logo visibility guidelines from Red Hat contract

[bert]

The agreement linked to in the pdf clearly states that the Fedora branding is to be shown *during the boot process". So this is not of concern to Sugar. I changed the summary but cannot change the description. It should be something like "the XO needs to show Fedora branding during both graphical (pretty) and textual boots".

[cjb]

Thanks Bert, description updated.

[cscott]

I'm pretty sure we show Fedora branding during textual boot already -- at least, we certainly don't alter that part of the usual Fedora initscripts.

For graphical boot, I need a set of new animation frames. Eben seems to be the right assignee for this. If the new animation alters the very first frame, then a new OFW version is needed as well. (Maybe it's the first *two* frames which come from OFW? My memory is hazy.)

[Eben]

A proposal for the appearance of the Fedora logo during startup

[Eben]

The proposal attached above uses the provided all-black version of the logo as provided (at actual pixel size), but rendered in a light gray to match the dots. The intent of the startup sequence is to emphasize the form of the XO itself, which is rendered in a slightly darker gray than everything else. If we can get approval for the above treatment, I'll apply this change to all of the images in the sequence.

I would definitely prefer the logo to appear in the first frame, as this marks a context switch anyway. Revealing it on a later frame could distract attention from the XO.

[pgf]

Replying to cscott:

I'm pretty sure we show Fedora branding during textual boot already -- at least, we certainly don't alter that part of the usual Fedora initscripts.

no fedora branding that i can see. i believe at least one mention of Fedora probably went away when the contents of /etc/redhat-release changed to say "OLPC release 9 (Joyride)" (which it does, even on 8.2/767, i.e., not Joyride). this text is where the "Welcome to OLPC" message comes from, driven from rc.sysinit.

i wouldn't be surprised if other traces of fedora were changed along the way -- i'm not a regular fedora user, so i couldn't say for sure.

[mstone-xmlrpc]

Pushing out to 9.1.0, per edmcnierney's request.

[mstone]

Restoring to 8.2.1 since this is on the short-list at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/ECO/8.2.1. Someday, I'll write a smarter script. :)

[Eben]

Could you or Greg take a look at the proposal and verify that it meets standards? Thanks!

[cscott]

Converted Eben's image to a PNG

[cscott]

Eben's attachment looks like it was actually in Photoshop PSD format. Converted to PNG and reattached.

Based on the PDF Ed attached, it looks like our contract anticipated adding Fedora branding to the Linux kernel boot logo. Deepak, could you look at feasibility? This bug might want to be split in two to cover the graphical and non-graphical boot work needed.

[pfrields]

The proposal looks acceptable to me, and the Artwork team leader has also agreed: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-art-list/2008-December/msg00070.html

Not sure to whom this now needs to be assigned. Could someone please move this ticket along as needed?

[pgf]

eben's proposal only addresses "pretty boot". the visiblity guidelines (attached above) also show graphics as needed for the console boot, in the form of a "tux" replacement.

who's doing that design, and implementation?

[dsaxena]

Replying to pgf:

eben's proposal only addresses "pretty boot". the visiblity guidelines (attached above) also show graphics as needed for the console boot, in the form of a "tux" replacement. who's doing that design, and implementation?

All we need is a 224-color 80x80 image in PPM format to replace drivers/video/logo/logo_linux_clut224.ppm in the kernel sources.

[Eben]

Scott, I'm confused. You converted my PNG (not .PSD) to... a PNG; is there something wrong with my export? I intend to attach a PNG sequence with all the necessary frames, but if there's a format issue we should address it first. Let me know what you need.

Deepak, regarding the logo for textual boot, none of the remix logos offered are square. Should we be using the standard fedora logo instead? (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Image:Logo_UsageGuidelines_logomark.png) I don't know how to create a PPM, but I can create a PNG or other format at the appropriate size if you can convert it. Should it have an alpha channel, or be rendered on black?

[dsaxena]

Replying to Eben:

Deepak, regarding the logo for textual boot, none of the remix logos offered are square. Should we be using the standard fedora logo instead? (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Image:Logo_UsageGuidelines_logomark.png) I don't know how to create a PPM, but I can create a PNG or other format at the appropriate size if you can convert it. Should it have an alpha channel, or be rendered on black?

I think rendered on black is good. Looking at the kernel code, I think it can actually handle any size, not just 80x80 which happens to be the size of all the sample images in sources. Can you post PNG of the desired remix logo for me to test with?

[pgf]

although square linux logos are traditional, they're definitely not a requirement. it can be as big as the screen. background should be black, to match the text background when the kernel printks start.

(my experience is from 2.4.25 or so. i assume this is all still true.)

[Eben]

PNG sequence for graphical boot

[Eben]

PNG image for textual boot

[pgf]

eben -- did you see the text boot proposal in the visibility guidelines? i like the idea of making the primary branding be OLPC branding, with the fedora remix branding as a subscript image, so to speak.

(but maybe i'm misunderstanding the intent of your "fedora_remix_white.png" attachment.)

[Eben]

OLPC logo with Fedora remix branding

[Eben]

Scott, Deepak: feel free to split this ticket if desired. Also, let me know if you need anything else from me! Thanks.

[dsd]

I will make the kernel patch for textual boot based on olpc_fedora_remix.png later this evening

[dsd]

Verdict from the 8.2.1 meeting was:

* don't change the firmware * do change the kernel image * do change pretty boot from the third frame

we're not really sure how to do the initramfs changes for the pretty boot, but Mitch knows how to convert the PNG images to the right format at least

[dsd]

kernel patch for textual bootup branding

[dsd]

I have attached a kernel patch to add the logo. Next steps are for Deepak to review/accept it, and then to enable CONFIG_LOGO_OLPC_FEDORA_CLUT224 in the kernel configuration

[dsaxena]

Replying to dsd:

I have attached a kernel patch to add the logo. Next steps are for Deepak to review/accept it, and then to enable CONFIG_LOGO_OLPC_FEDORA_CLUT224 in the kernel configuration

Committed into testing.

[dsaxena]

http://dev.laptop.org/~dilinger/testing/kernel-2.6.25-20081217.24.olpc_qemu.31e049fce071030.i586.rpm has the desired bits.

[dsaxena]

Sorry, I gave you the non-3DNOW kernel for QEMU. You want:

http://dev.laptop.org/~dilinger/testing/kernel-2.6.25-20081217.24.olpc.31e049fce071030.i586.rpm

[cscott]

Please put the appropriate kernel RPMs in yr ~/public_rpms/staging on dev. (Also in joyride, if appropriate.)

[cscott]

I've split the kernel and initramfs portions of this bug. The kernel part (this bug) should be fixed by dsaxena's latest packages, as soon as he adds them to a build. The initramfs portion is tracked by #9140.

[cscott]

dsaxena: you need a ChangeLog or *.changes file in your public_rpms/staging directory, see http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Build_system#Instructions_for_Use

[cjb]

Verified that kernel-2.6.25-20081217.24 is present in staging-9.

[dsd]

verified that logo appears during unsecured staging-9 boot

[cjl]

Per last comment by dsd, I think this ticket should be closed as fixed. Does anyone have any more recent input?

[edmcnierney]

Thanks; you're right - it was indeed fixed in 8.2.1.