OLPC <-> Fedora packages (Was: New update.1 build 669)

[Bernardo Innocenti]

(cc fedora-devel)

Jim Gettys wrote:

> Yes, these are packages that had landed in joyride from upstream while
> no one was looking.
> 
> We need to get the build announcer to give us insight into upstream
> package updates (on Dennis' shoulders).
> 
> There are several of these that are worth further investigation: we need
> to check the diffs and changelogs on python and matchbox, and any other
> core components; and all the changelogs need vetting.

I also see this as an important goal, and not just to catch the
security and stability fixes.  As dwmw said, the more we drift
away from upstream packages, the harder it will be to rebase.

After Update.1, I'll refresh all the packages I maintain, and
I invite others to do the same.

That said, merging our changes in the Fedora development
packages makes me a little uncomfortable.  I'm not following
Fedora development *that* closely, and the true maintainers
of those packages certainly know better.  So, it may be a
better idea to show them our changes and ask them what to do.

There are also a few packages, such as initscripts, which I
think we don't ever want to merge back.  The two systems are
just too different and trying to support both in one package
is going to be painful and useless.

For X, I'm working to rebase on 1.5, of which a pre-release
has already been in rawhide for some time.

Perhaps we should discuss what to do about the kernel: it's
clear that we'll need an OLPC-specific build variant, and for
quite some time I think we'll be unwilling to update our
kernel consistently with Fedora.  But here I'm just
guessing.  Dilinger and dwmw may have different plans.

-- 
 \___/
 |___|   Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
  \___\  One Laptop Per Child - http://www.laptop.org/