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

Re: Add Moblin Desktop group to comps

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Colin Walters<walters verbum org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Peter Robinson<pbrobinson gmail com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I would like to add a group for the Moblin Desktop. My proposed patch
>> is below and feedback is welcome.
> Peter, thanks for all your work on packaging stuff, it's really great.
>  I appreciate the work on introspection and gnome-shell a lot.
> Are you planning a Moblin spin?  Or do see this as just having the
> packages in Fedora, and the final Moblin releases are done by that
> project?

Eventually I plan on having a moblin spin but not for F-12. The work
in Fedora at the moment is separate to anything that is coming from
Moblin. The advantage that Fedora will have that at the moment
upstream Moblin doesn't support anything that isn't an Atom processor.
So we should in the long term be able to support the older Celeron
based Netbooks and possibly the VIA based ones or NVidia ones.

> I'm a bit unsure of how far away Moblin is from the Fedora core OS
> right now; I know there's the NetworkManager/Connman split, but
> ignoring that, do you (or anyone) have an idea of how many patches to
> upstream projects they have to support the fast boot?  How different
> is their early kernel boot, and what tradeoffs are involved?

Depends on which bits you look at. Most of the packages are based on
Fedora packages, the whole lot is built using the suse build system.
The NM/connman is an interesting split. It seems suse is assisting the
process from the build side of things but has written a NetworkManger
moblin GUI that looks the same as the connman one sot they are
interchangable. Obviously we'll use the NM one because NM is cool :-)
Other than the 30 odd new packages needed for Moblin there doesn't
seem to be massive convergence from the other core Fedora packages. In
fact there's some cross over for some of the gnome-shell stuff in that
they use mutter and associated stuff.

>From the rest of it AFAICT from the poking I've done they've replaced
the standard init process with "fastinit" which I haven't even looked
at. Its in their git repo though.

> What we really do need is some more directed coordination between the
> two projects.

That would be fabulous, but only time will tell.


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