2008/7/25 yersinia <yersinia.spiros@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@xxxxxxxxx> >> > wrote: >> >> I suspect the later. The Fedora name probably does little for their >> >> target market. >> > >> > There is the Fedora mark, the Fedora distribution, and the Fedora >> > process. >> > The fedora mark is what I care about most as a Board member >> > The fedora distribution is what I care about most as a user >> > The fedora process is what I care about most as a contributor. >> > >> > If their real goal is to increase contributor involvement then I >> > personally think they need to leverage as much of our process as they >> > can..and not just the bits in the distribution. I want to make sure >> > the moblin people have an adequate understanding of our process, so we >> > can have a discussion concerning whether or not they can align how >> > they do things for cross-pollination of contributor effort. >> > >> >> Most probably. Fedora is pretty restrictive against non-free software >> >> (which I like) but which >> >> isn't exactly aligned with "just work" consumer devices. >> > >> > I looked at the moblin 2 playground site briefly, I'm not sure I see >> > any specific items which are problematic. I believe I even ran into a >> > statement that they are committed to pushing the kernel patches they >> > are generating upstream for review. So they at least appear to 'get >> > it' when it comes to our view of kernel work. >> > http://www.moblin.org/playground/?q=node/23 >> > >> > The current moblin 1 SDK includes the intel compiler, but that not one >> > of the moblin subprojects and i didn't see any specific discussion in >> > the moblin 2 playground. Honestly, we just don't know enough about >> > why they've moved over to be based on Fedora, or how strong the >> > commitment is to a full open moblin 2 stack. There are hints in the >> > moblin 2 playground pages, but I do not trust articles to always get >> > motivations and intents correctly prioritized. Dirk's blog seems to >> > indicate he's been using F8 and F9 on an EEE machine, so its not a >> > completely blind jump. >> > >> > -jef >> >> >> What are your thoughts on the reason given? RPM had one feature that >> was needed. But from what I've heard/read from others, RPM is lacking >> many other features (better compression methods for example). RPM has >> been (seemingly) pretty stagnant. > > Let me respond on this point. Probably i am the wrong person to tell this > but rpm4.6, in rawhide, have now lzma payload support via liblzma. Suse > rpm4.4.2.xxxxx have the same support, so have, from more time along iirc, > rpm5.org. > > Regards Okay. Thanks for the further info on this. Maybe the RPM devs need to have the marketing team whip up an anti FUD campaign. -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
