Uttered Patrick Barnes <nman64@xxxxxxxxx>, spake thus: > Chidananda Jayakeerti wrote: > >Is it possible to achieve an HCL for limited set of hardware, to begin > >with. Servers and workstations can be a good start. We do not have to > >maintain an exhaustive list of webcams' keyboards, printers > >(linuxprinting does a good job) and mice etc. > >We could also have several maintainers for the HCL based on categories. > Trying, especially with a non-commercial project, to maintain any sort > of HCL is a dangerous effort. Those writing the HCL will always be > chasing the facts. Things simply change too rapidly. Well, that may be overstating things a bit. Consider: every X months (X=3 or so), a new FCn release is made with a FINITE number of included device drivers. Currently we are in the semi-ridiculous position of attempting to offer an operating system without even an un-clear statement of what hardware that release supports. Now, there are actually only a handful or so of new devices added between FC(n) and FC(n+1). After the initial effort of producing the first: Manufacturer,Device,(FCn version, tested date)* list tracking the Fedora Core (only) shouldn't be that onerous a maintanance task. The "Supported Devices" list should earn a place on the distro CD, just as the Release Notes have done. And be just as stable. I dislike the HCL idea, and the HIL, because they are unbounded activities more suitable to a personal web site than part of the FDP which is about the differentiation of the Fedora Core releases from other Linux projects. Thus, I think the "Got Drivers?" doc entirely appropriate as a FDP project and the HCL/HIL more of a personal Wiki-type effort. In summary: HCL/HIL good project, just not authoritative to be an FDP. Contriwise, the "Got Drivers?" listing should be part of the product definition. See the difference? Cheers
Attachment:
pgpu4b9As1eUN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
