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

Re: Moblin 2 and Fedora



On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 12:52 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2009 14:33:28 -0400
> Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 21:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > On 05/04/2009 08:28 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Just to underline this point, let's look at what the Moblin FAQ
> > > > has to say on the subject:
> > > > 
> > > > Q Is Moblin v2.0 based on another distribution?
> > > >         Moblin v2.0 borrows components from various
> > > > distributions, but is not based on another distribution.
> > > >         
> > > >     [ source:
> > > > http://moblin.org/documentation/moblin-overview/faq ]
> > > > 
> > > > This seems... disingenuous?  I guess it all depends on what the
> > > > definition of the word "based" is.  It's also the sort of
> > > > statement that begs immediate deconstruction.  If moblin _isn't_
> > > > based on another distribution, why does it feel the need to say
> > > > so.  On the other hand, if it is, why does it say it isn't.
> > > 
> > > I don't see us accomplishing much by stating the obvious, which is
> > > that Moblin is indeed based on Fedora even if Intel does not want to
> > > acknowledge that for whatever reasons. Considering that they seem to
> > > have moved it over to Linux Foundation, it all might just be
> > > political considerations.  Let's move beyond that.
> > > 
> > > Now, is there useful patches that we need to push upstream? Are
> > > there additional packages, we can import into Fedora? Let's look at
> > > that list. We know of sreadahead. Has the kernel portion been
> > > upstreamed? Arjan pointed out memuse in
> > > http://lwn.net/Articles/331423/. What's the rest?
> > 
> > Yeah, how about Poulsbo support?  Is anyone at Intel actually working
> > on upstreaming the unencumbered 2D parts of that, including the
> > kernel bits and the X driver?  Random crack in gregkh's tree doesn't
> > count.
> > 
> 
> it's not very useful if the various upstream maintainers say that they
> won't accept it no matter what... at that point... yes people stop
> working on it.

Nobody has ever said that about the *2D* parts, and I specifically
mentioned "unencumbered 2D parts" above.  Intel needs to get its head
out of its ass WRT Poulsbo and gets out some 2D bits, and stops working
in private trees and stop doing code dumps only to Ubuntu.

Seriously, is that team even *part* of Intel?  Because the Poulsbo Linux
team is completely different than any of the other Intel Linux teams
I've had the actual pleasure of interacting with.

Dan



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