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

Re: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-15



On Thursday 17 July 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:21 AM, John Poelstra <poelstra redhat com> wrote:
> > == Mingw ==
>
> I'm going to editorialize a little and reorder the bullets in doing so.

> > * Board supports such an effort as long as it is self contained and
> > separated from the main package respository
> >
> > ** Leave technical details and implementation to FESCo
> >
> >From a broad Project policy perspective we think that cross-compiling
>
> is a new and different enough concept to separated out from the main
> repository offering as a new subproject endeavor.  How exactly that is
> done, is something we want FESCo to take up.  The Board is
> deliberately avoiding making specific implementation choices, but we
> did talk through enough of the possibilities so I was confident that
> this can be implemented without asking anyone to do the impossible
> with the available infrastructure.
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?   if so 
the resulting .exe files can live wherever we decide to put them.  but they 
obviously have no place in fedora repositories.

> > * Fedora should be in support of furthering open source software even if
> > it doesn't run on Linux
> > ** How far should this be taken?
>
> FESCo also has a mandate to build policy associated with the packaging
> of the cross-compiled libraries.  And while the Board didn't make the
> mandate, I have a personal expectation that the packaging policies
> concerning cross-compiled libraries and applications will put a strong
> emphasis on requiring natively built versions of anything in the main
> repository before it can be considered for cross-compiling in the new
> mingw construct whatever it looks like.  We have a long term interest
> in making sure we focus primarily on native libraries and
> applications. And while we don't have to be exclusive about it.. we
> must not undermine that focus as it relates to our primary project
> objective.  My personal line is drawn thusly: If it can't be built
> natively for our distribution, then it can't be built in our
> buildsystem.  If FESCo decides differently, I as a Board member would
> need to understand why.
you should have no expectations of an outcome unless you go through the board 
and have them mandate  something.  you can share your opinion but it is to be 
taken as nothing more.  what you write above looks like a thinly veiled 
threat.  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.

> > ** Special casing each new instance of cross compiling
> > * Board expresses concern on potential future resource issues
>
> We can look at what is before us with mingw both narrowly and quite
> broadly. Looking quite narrowly, as to the specific purpose trying to be
> achieved with the libvirt cross-compiling using the mingw toolset, I
> don't think anyone has a problem with what is trying to be achieved.
> Making libvirt available as a technology on Windows will most likely
> make it easier for people to run Fedora and other linux distributions
> in real world environments. And as such the Board is comfortable
> allocating resources for that very narrow purpose.
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.  

<snip noise>
> > # Karsten to start a new thread on fedora-advisory-board concerning
> > trademarks
>
> I would encourage everyone to read over our objectives page in the
> wiki again before joining Karsten's thread concerning trademark usage
> which he'll be starting.
There should be no fedora trademark usage.   the only windows tool i see that 
we should provide and should have our trademark is the tool that lets you 
install a fedora livecd to a usb key other than that each project to his own.  

> 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.

-- 
Dennis Gilmore

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


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