> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa gmail com
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta gmail com
>> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa gmail com
>> > wrote:
>> >> I suspect the later. The Fedora name probably does little for their
>> >> target market.
>> > There is the Fedora mark, the Fedora distribution, and the Fedora
>> > process.
>> > The fedora mark is what I care about most as a Board member
>> > The fedora distribution is what I care about most as a user
>> > The fedora process is what I care about most as a contributor.
>> > If their real goal is to increase contributor involvement then I
>> > personally think they need to leverage as much of our process as they
>> > can..and not just the bits in the distribution. I want to make sure
>> > the moblin people have an adequate understanding of our process, so we
>> > can have a discussion concerning whether or not they can align how
>> > they do things for cross-pollination of contributor effort.
>> >> Most probably. Fedora is pretty restrictive against non-free software
>> >> (which I like) but which
>> >> isn't exactly aligned with "just work" consumer devices.
>> > I looked at the moblin 2 playground site briefly, I'm not sure I see
>> > any specific items which are problematic. I believe I even ran into a
>> > statement that they are committed to pushing the kernel patches they
>> > are generating upstream for review. So they at least appear to 'get
>> > it' when it comes to our view of kernel work.
>> > http://www.moblin.org/playground/?q=node/23
>> > The current moblin 1 SDK includes the intel compiler, but that not one
>> > of the moblin subprojects and i didn't see any specific discussion in
>> > the moblin 2 playground. Honestly, we just don't know enough about
>> > why they've moved over to be based on Fedora, or how strong the
>> > commitment is to a full open moblin 2 stack. There are hints in the
>> > moblin 2 playground pages, but I do not trust articles to always get
>> > motivations and intents correctly prioritized. Dirk's blog seems to
>> > indicate he's been using F8 and F9 on an EEE machine, so its not a
>> > completely blind jump.
>> > -jef
>> What are your thoughts on the reason given? RPM had one feature that
>> was needed. But from what I've heard/read from others, RPM is lacking
>> many other features (better compression methods for example). RPM has
>> been (seemingly) pretty stagnant.
> Let me respond on this point. Probably i am the wrong person to tell this
> but rpm4.6, in rawhide, have now lzma payload support via liblzma. Suse
> rpm4.4.2.xxxxx have the same support, so have, from more time along iirc,