Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-15

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis at ausil.us> wrote:
> I would assume the only thing being considered for inclusion here is the
> compiler tool chain to enable people to cross build apps for windows,  im
> assuming on ia64, i386 and x86_64 since thats where windows can run.  I see it
> no different to the current arm cross compiling toolkit.  and of course if we
> can only use binary blobs for part of it its not ever going to be acceptable
> in fedora.   are you proposing we create software builds for windows?

First, my understanding is that right now... everything so far
discussed has not involved any binary blobs. Mingw is a completely
open codebase that we can natively compile as a toolset in Fedora.
The issue that bubbled up to fab was not whether or not the tool
should be allowed in. The issue was whether we should be able to use
the tool to build dll payloads to be packaged up as a skeleton
development environment for people wanting to do open development over
windows.

You need to look over the previous mingw/libvirt -devel-list thread
and then the resulting fab thread that Axel started for discussion
context as to the original motivation to be able to cross-compile
enough libraries to ease libvirt client support on windows.  My
personal summary of the discussions will be skewed towards what I
think are important policy questions. But the developers working on
the cross-compiling the libvirt and related libraries would be able to
speak more directly to their motivations.

> if so
> the resulting .exe files can live wherever we decide to put them.  but they
> obviously have no place in fedora repositories.

That's sort of where we are now.  It's okay to do, and we are pretty
sure its not impossible to do with our given infrastructure, the Board
has agreed that we can do it, but it should live outside the main
repository.

> you should have no expectations of an outcome unless you go through the board
> and have them mandate  something.

What?  I completely disagree with that. I am personally allowed to
have expectations, if my expectations are severely out of alignment
then I'm not on the same page and then I, personally, have a
communication gap that I need to work on.

> you can share your opinion but it is to be
> > taken as nothing more.  what you write above looks like a thinly veiled
> threat.

It wasn't meant as a threat. If FESCo ends up coming up to a different
conclusion then I need to understand why, so that I can be more
effective as a Board member.  If I'm not on the same page as FESCo's
consensus opinion with regard to this sort of issue.. then there's a
deep impendance mismatch with regard to interpreting project
objectives that I need to be aware of.

though your personal line is fedora policy.  nothing can be built
> that requires something outside of fedora (EPEL is an exception in that we
> build upon other Fedora based distros)  but its all fedora.  I personally wish
> you would cut down the noise that we have seen from you lately.  all of the
> above is just noise.

Yes. I have a personal character flaw to be overly verbose at times.
It helps to be reminded to attempt to be succinct.  I will make a
renewed effort.

> Huh,
> All we should provide is the tools to enable people like libvirt build there
> stuff themselves.  but they should host the resulting binaries themselves.  We
> dont have release engineering to do windows binary releases.  nor do we have
> hosting space to host them.  And i think it would be odd to say to a windows
> user go over to this fedora place and get your binaries.

I cannot invalidate the resource concerns you bring up.  I believe the
developers who are pushing the mingw use as a cross-compiler of
libvirt have attempted to highlight the value to Fedora in discussions
leading up to this Board meeting. In both the fab and -devel-list
threads. I doubt I would be better able to make an argument that
justifies the resource outlay better than they have.

>> If FESCo members or mingw SIG members need clarification as to what is
>> being asked of them, do not hesitate to respond.
> Id like clarification on what you think you are doing.  to me its seems all you
> are doing is making noise.

I don't know how to respond to this in a way that would not be
considered noise. I have a tendency to be even more verbose, when I'm
asked to clarify. But if I'm already being overly verbose, isn't he
best course of action at that point to just cut my losses and be
silent? This riddle will keep my from sleeping this evening.

-jef