Re: Secondary architectures and marketing

[Oliver Falk <oliver linux-kernel at>]

Steven Moix wrote:
> Oliver & Matt,
>
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 12:44 -0500, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > That's another point I'd like to talk about. I have no idea how I can
> > > > help if you don't ask on the list ;). As far as I can tell, you need CPU
> > > > time to recompile the "older" packages from the "F9 alpha vs. F9" tree
> > > > on http://buildsys.zero42.at/status/, am I right?
> > > Yes. CPU power is the most relevant. I do have a few boxes now, but not too
> > > much time to dig into every build problem.
> > Again, this is what I don't understand. Why duplicate effort?
>
> Well, because this was a RedHat mailinglist in the first place and that
> I didn't care much about Gentoo ;) You hijacked this post :p
>
> > Jay Estabrook mentioned to me that he just got xulrunner to compile
> > again, but only with -O0. If this was ever an issue with Gentoo, it's
> > long since fixed.

-O0 is already gone with the latest build (it's -O2 now). We now only 
have --no-relax, passed to the linker.

> > You, Oliver, and Jay are two of the best developers we have, and it
> > seems to me to be such a waste of your time and effort to worry about
> > hunting down a build error and generating RPMs.

Thx a lot for the flowers :-)

Well, hunting down build errors is what we *have to do*. If we wouldn't 
do that, we wouldn't have recent gcc, glibc, xulrunner, firefox, kernel, 
... And that we produce RPMs, well, we're packaging for Fedora. :-)

[ ... ]

> It's a hard question Oliver, but don't you feel that it might be better
> for the architecture to join up efforts on one distribution?

Sure. Fedora :-P

[ ... ]

-of