State of Fedora spin

[Jeremy Katz]

On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 18:35 -0400, Jim Gettys wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 17:35 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > There's definitely been a lot of drift between the two kernel spec
> > files.  Which is worth resolving in any case.  The ideal, to me at
> > least, would be if we can just use one of the same kernels that's
> > shipped in Fedora.  That's the only way that we're going to be able to
> > have any spin carry the Fedora trademark at present.  And really, that
> > doesn't look like it should be that far off -- there's not that much in
> > the diff of 2.6.26 to the olpc kernel tree from a glance.  And some may
> > even be resolved in 2.6.27.
> 
> That's the ideal, but not all OLPC stuff is upstream in kernel.org as
> yet (e.g. device tree stuff, where there are several alternatives
> differing in not-very-important details currently gumming the works) .
> And it is likely/probable we'll continue to do work in power management.
> in advance of Linus...  Whether Fedora would want to carry such patches
> is far from clear, and .seems unlikely

Compelling patches that are destined for the next Linus rev (... with
someone who's willing to own helping to fix them up if they break the
build) go in with some frequency.  The big thing is that it's a
mentality shift.  But the advantages you gain (both from thinking "get
kernel changes upstream Linus kernel" and "get packages changes in
upstream Fedora") end up making it so that going from Fedora 9->10->11
becomes a far less difficult process.  And then maybe we can get to
where the actual build being shipped on the XOs has few to no forked
packages

Jeremy