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

Re: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures



On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 17:13 -0700, Manas Saksena wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 15:51 -0700, Manas Saksena wrote:
> >> Note that this is not a secondary architecture issue, per se. From
> >> what
> >> I can tell, the OLPC-Fedora distribution is already doing this within
> >> the Fedora infrastructure. 
> > 
> > To an extent, yes, although, they're still following the Fedora
> > Packaging Guidelines.
> > 
> > I'd be very interested in the guidelines that you feel you might need to
> > break/ignore. :)
> 
> Packaging guidelines may be the wrong term. But, you often need to do
> surgery (and sometimes a deep one ) to packages when you are trying to
> squeeze functionality into a 4MB flash (or 16, 32, 64MB -- whatever).
> At other times, you want to have tools (much like pilgrim, revisor,
> etc.) that can ensure that whatever hacked up distro you end up creating
> can be re-created automagically from your package repository (and, have
> some resilience when packages get updated etc.).

There's also hardware that lacks FPU.  So you have to build every
package with -msoft-float.  The list for the embedded cases is endless.

I also believe basing something off of Fedora and expecting the main
Fedora distro to accommodate them at all is unrealistic.  If you're
going to make a distribution that does not have it's changes in CVS,
it's not "based on Fedora" or "derived from Fedora".  It's "the OMG WTF
BBQ distribution, built with some tools from Fedora.. maybe."

Derivative distributions are entirely outside the scope of secondary
arches.

josh


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