On Mon, 04 May 2009 14:33:28 -0400
Dan Williams <dcbw(a)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
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.