Moblin 2 and Fedora
dcbw at redhat.com
Mon May 4 18:33:28 UTC 2009
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 21:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/04/2009 08:28 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > 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.
> I don't see us accomplishing much by stating the obvious, which is that
> Moblin is indeed based on Fedora even if Intel does not want to
> acknowledge that for whatever reasons. Considering that they seem to
> have moved it over to Linux Foundation, it all might just be political
> considerations. Let's move beyond that.
> Now, is there useful patches that we need to push upstream? Are there
> additional packages, we can import into Fedora? Let's look at that list.
> We know of sreadahead. Has the kernel portion been upstreamed? Arjan
> pointed out memuse in http://lwn.net/Articles/331423/. What's the rest?
Yeah, how about Poulsbo support? Is anyone at Intel actually working on
upstreaming the unencumbered 2D parts of that, including the kernel bits
and the X driver? Random crack in gregkh's tree doesn't count.
More information about the fedora-devel-list