[fab] Fedora Logo Proposal

[Rahul]

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 10:22 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> 
>> This may be a stupid (and Pandoraesque) question, so I'll apologize up
>> front for it, but it's honest at least:  why is Aurora not part of
>> Fedora, as far as providing build tools, CVS space and such?
> 
> Why is Aurora not part of Fedora?
> 
> 1. Aurora is older than Fedora. We've been at this since RHL 7.2.
> 2. sparc breaks. A LOT. For example, right now, glibc won't build for
> sparc64 and gcc won't build for sparc32. These tend to be very pivotal
> to a buildtree.
> 2a. With an arch that breaks a lot, it requires a lot of attention.
> Attention that undoubtedly Red Hat is not willing to provide it for
> Fedora Core (nor do I fault them for this). Red Hat doesn't pay me to do
> Aurora, I do that because I'm independently insane.
> 2b. Even if somehow Fedora Core SPARC was resolved, the issue of
> handling sparc in Fedora Extras arises. Today, Dennis Gilmore does a
> great job of rebuilding the SRPMS from FE, but many of them don't work
> for sparc. Should maintainers have to support sparc like they do
> ppc/i386/x86_64? I have some proposals for handling architecture
> tiering, but I've not had the time nor the motivation to pursue them
> (since there is no FC SPARC solution yet).

I see no reason here not to have stuff like Aurora or AlphaCore as 
second tier architectures that interested contributors can push forward. 
First step would be to provide Sparc machines to the buildsystem and let 
external contributors work on fixing stuff.

Rahul