On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 21:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 05/04/2009 08:28 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > > > > Just to underline this point, let's look at what the Moblin FAQ has to > > say on the subject: > > > > Q Is Moblin v2.0 based on another distribution? > > Moblin v2.0 borrows components from various distributions, but > > is not based on another distribution. > > > > [ source: http://moblin.org/documentation/moblin-overview/faq ] > > > > This seems... disingenuous? I guess it all depends on what the > > definition of the word "based" is. It's also the sort of statement that > > begs immediate deconstruction. If moblin _isn't_ based on another > > distribution, why does it feel the need to say so. On the other hand, > > if it is, why does it say it isn't. > > I don't see us accomplishing much by stating the obvious, which is that > Moblin is indeed based on Fedora even if Intel does not want to > acknowledge that for whatever reasons. Considering that they seem to > have moved it over to Linux Foundation, it all might just be political > considerations. Let's move beyond that. > > Now, is there useful patches that we need to push upstream? Are there > additional packages, we can import into Fedora? Let's look at that list. > We know of sreadahead. Has the kernel portion been upstreamed? Arjan > pointed out memuse in http://lwn.net/Articles/331423/. What's the rest? Yeah, how about Poulsbo support? Is anyone at Intel actually working on upstreaming the unencumbered 2D parts of that, including the kernel bits and the X driver? Random crack in gregkh's tree doesn't count. Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
