Secondary architectures and marketing

[Matt Turner]

Hi,

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Oliver Falk <oliver at linux-kernel.at> wrote:
> Hi Steven!
>
> Sorry. Business kept me busy...
>
> Steven Moix wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 21:15 +0100, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh yes. Jay and I are still very active. :-)
>>> There are some people who contribute CPU power from time to time. And
>>> others who help compiling things...
>>
>> That's another point I'd like to talk about. I have no idea how I can
>> help if you don't ask on the list ;). As far as I can tell, you need CPU
>> time to recompile the "older" packages from the "F9 alpha vs. F9" tree
>> on http://buildsys.zero42.at/status/, am I right?
>
> Yes. CPU power is the most relevant. I do have a few boxes now, but not too
> much time to dig into every build problem.

Again, this is what I don't understand. Why duplicate effort?

Jay Estabrook mentioned to me that he just got xulrunner to compile
again, but only with -O0. If this was ever an issue with Gentoo, it's
long since fixed.

You, Oliver, and Jay are two of the best developers we have, and it
seems to me to be such a waste of your time and effort to worry about
hunting down a build error and generating RPMs.

>
>> What is this tree anyway, is it compared against the Fedora 9 base DVD
>> only or the current Fedora 9 + all the updates?
>
> It's always *with* updates.
>
>>> I've introduced myself to Paul at LinuxTag2008 in Berlin and asked him
>>> regarding SecArch. I don't remember exactly what he said, but the last
>>> information I have is, that there is a space problem...
>>
>> Are you talking about Paul Frields?
>
> Yes. Sorry for being imprecise. :-)
>
>>> I also had a (mail-)conversation with Mike (McLean) a few weeks ago,
>>> because I've seen some scripts in koji git. Script that will help to "mirror
>>> the list of packages to be built to SecArch koji's" - I hope this way to
>>> describe it in one setence isn't too wrong. :-)
>>
>> Great, as long as you keep pushing the idea regularly I'm happy. :)
>
> :-)
>
>>>> The wiki page [2] seems completely outdated
>>>
>>> True, true. My fault. I'm very busy and Jay is trying to fix X most of
>>> the time. Again. We could really need some help. Especially in organizing,
>>> documentation and fixing packages... 2 People for (what? 6.4k pkgs is
>>> *hard*!).
>>>
>>>  > and alphacore.info doesn't
>>>>
>>>> even work anymore (is Mike Barnes gone?), which leads me to the second
>>>> proposition.
>>>
>>> I've asked Mike via mail some time ago. No reaction yet.... /me is
>>> thinking about talking the domain... And maybe just redirect it to SecArch
>>> pages on fpo.
>>
>> Frankly, I don't think that Alphacore is an appropriated name anymore,
>> since Fedora dropped the Core part. If you really want a domain name to
>> get some visibility until we get integrated in Fedora as a secondary
>> architecture, I suggest alphadora.org. It isn't a bad name after all.
>
> Well. I guess it would be fine to have some Links from alphalinux.org to
> zero42 and vice versa... Alphadora.org would be nice, but someone still has
> to maintain it...

Ugh. Alphadora? Listen to the Fedora marketing people. That name is awful.

>
>>>> The bottom line is that currently there is no way anyone can even know
>>>> that an alpha port for Fedora exists, wouldn't it be more fun to have
>>>> more visibility and users?
>>>
>>> True. True. We are quite 'hidden'. On the other hand. We are not really
>>> hidden, because we are talking on IRC (at least me) in #AlphaCore and
>>> #alpha. We are also having conversation via the alpha mailinglist. And we
>>> are visible via bugs (rh bz, gnu bz and others)....
>>
>> We are not that many, so I that that the mailinglist is still the
>> central place to be, but a small Wordpress-based website could be cool
>> too to get some visibility. I can take care of this if you want.
>
> That would be great, but I think alphalinux.org would be the best place,
> don't you think?
>

I'm planning major renovations for AlphaLinux.Org (Content management
system, Forum, SRM/documentation archive, hardware compatibility list,
etc.)

It wouldn't be _hard_ to create a section on the site for Fedora, but
I'm not sure if that's what we should do.

Assuming you forge ahead with Fedora/Alpha, wouldn't Fedora provide
you with hosting?

Plus, before I spend time doing anything about a Fedora/Alpha website,
someone needs to tell me why we need Fedora/Alpha at all.

It seems to be a distraction from bigger problems to me.

>>> AH! One thing, that is currently a BLOCKER. There's no glibc alpha
>>> maintainer any more... I've already asked via bz what skills someone who
>>> would takeover this job would need, but no answer yet.... If it doesn't
>>> depend on hardcore-deep c knowledge, I could do it myself... If they want me
>>> to do so. :-)
>>
>> I'm sooo not a C programmer, can't help much :)
>
> Well. I expected this :-)
>
> Best,
>  Oliver
>
> _______________________________________________
> axp-list mailing list
> axp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/axp-list
>

Thanks,

Matt