[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Moblin 2 and Fedora

>> > So I would like to really ask you and others to stop thinking of Moblin
>> > as "Fedora with changes" and measure everything against that. I realize
>> > it's easy to think that, and a lot of things just won't make sense in
>> > that mindset.
>> I ended up analysing this while otherwise bored. There's nothing
>> especially surprising in the moblin repositories. The large majority of
>> the packages are Fedora derived, with a small number from suse
>> (primarily the toolchain, as Arjan said) and a few custom ones.
>> Figuring out the proportion of the packages that were Fedora derived was
>> actually surprisingly difficult. A large number of the specfiles have
>> been processed through something called specbuilder. The behaviour of
>> this seems to have varied between versions - some remove the original
>> changelog, some don't. In some cases the specfiles are identical to the
>> Fedora ones (to the extent of including comments) but have simply had
>> the changelog entries stripped.
> There is a reasonably legitimate technical reason for this, which is
> that the changelogs end up in the rpmdb, which is wasted disk space for
> the moblin use case (user just wants firefox and doesn't care about
> package changelogs).  It's about 24M on my machine, for instance.
> Of course that's also something you could strip out at rpmbuild time...
>> There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of this, but right now it's
>> kind of hard to see how moblin is anyone other than Fedora with changes.
>> I don't think that puts Intel under any sort of obligation to feed
>> changes back to us and I agree that Koji isn't ideally suited to
>> producing the kind of derivative that Intel want to, but it would be
>> nice to acknowledge the amount of the project that's built on the work
>> of Fedora contributors.
> Just to underline this point, let's look at what the Moblin FAQ has to
> say on the subject:
> Q Is Moblin v2.0 based on another distribution?
>        Moblin v2.0 borrows components from various distributions, but
>        is not based on another distribution.
>    [ source: http://moblin.org/documentation/moblin-overview/faq ]
> This seems... disingenuous?  I guess it all depends on what the
> definition of the word "based" is.  It's also the sort of statement that
> begs immediate deconstruction.  If moblin _isn't_ based on another
> distribution, why does it feel the need to say so.  On the other hand,
> if it is, why does it say it isn't.

And why when moblin 2 was announced did they make announcements that
they were moving from Ubuntu to Fedora such as reported here

I would also be interested to know what was wrong with the Fedora
toolchain that they decided to use the Suse one (or maybe what was
right about the suse one).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]