On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
If phones and tablets aren't the primary focus, what is?
Development boards, for the sake of running Fedora ARM on something? Server systems that
don't exist yet (or aren't widely available)?
They're not the primary focus of mainline Fedora either. We're
CURRENTLY focusing on development boards (100s of examples), desktop
like systems (Trimslice and other similar systems), netbooks/laptop
style systems and the various media centre style devices (STB/media
sticks etc), and servers.
The reason we're not focusing on phones/tablets at the moment is a
number of reasons including things like user experience, resources and
other upstream support of those style of devices. The phone/tablet
manufacturers are dreadful at upstreaming things and the vast majority
of devices are locked (see also the bits of this thread about ARM
devices shipping Windows).
Also at the moment the vast majority of the Desktop UXes are a
dreadful experience on tablets whether that be x86 or ARM based.
All of the above will improve in time at which point there will be
more reason to focus towards that but to date we've been focusing on
other areas. That's not to say others can't focus on that if that's
their desire... it is after all Fedora.
I'm interested in Fedora on phones, tablets, tiny dongly media
centers, set-top boxes, Wi-Fi routers and eBook readers. Why wasn't I allowed to have
permissions to run image making on the ARM instances? I wanted to create a rootfs with
gnome-shell as the default, similar to the desktop live CD, and couldn't because
"it's not the focus". Why should the package maintainers carry the burden of
maintaining packages that get compiled on ARM if their interests aren't "the
focus"? I know I'd get yelled at if I started adding "ExcludeArch: arm"
to my packages, so why is it OK for the ARM SIG to dismiss other Fedora contributors'
interests, and actively block their attempts at making Fedora more available?
I'm not sure what you mean by "Why wasn't I allowed to have
permissions to run image making on the ARM instances?". We decided not
to ship the gnome-shell spin for this release of ARM as out of the box
it wouldn't have worked and would have hence provided a terrible
experience. This was discussed in our weekly meeting.
There's nothing to stop someone doing a remix of gnome-shell with
third party drivers/kernels etc but unfortunately the way the spins
are build doesn't allow the use of third party repositories but this
is no different to the rel-eng policy for mainline x86 but then
there's nothing stopping it from being done on another ARM system and
many people have created remixes for both F-18  and F-19  so
we're not explicitly stopping you from creating a gnome-shell remix.
We've not been "dismiss other Fedora contributors' interests, and
actively block their attempts" in fact we actively encourage people
that are interested in rolling up their sleeves and helping out in
their particular interest area. You've emailed me directly about how
to create remixes and I've provided you details on how to do that and
if there's someone else who is causing issues please contact me off
list and I'll address that particular issue but I fail to see our
decision to not ship a spin that doesn't currently work as blocking
others ability to remix a spin as they choose as many others have
successfully done so.
As for "burden of maintaining packages that get compiled on ARM" I
don't believe you've had any extra burden, there have been very few
GNOME packages that have had compile issues on ARM and I believe for
the vast majority of those few that have the ARM team have fixed them
without any intervention required.