Alternative option for solving Fedora i686 vs geode problems

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at
Mon Jun 7 18:58:03 EDT 2010

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd at> wrote:
> On 7 June 2010 18:33, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at> wrote:
>> 1) I thought we'd moved away from rolling our own distro due to the
>> amount of time and engineering resources it required that OLPC no
>> longer had. Has this changed? IE is there an internal thing that has
>> changed that hasn't been announced externally?
> Depends what you mean by "rolling our own distro". In some respects
> OLPC has always rolled its own distro, using its own build tools and
> adding custom packages.
> From the other point of view, the majority of packages have come from
> Fedora in every release to date, is this really our own distro?
> In this case, the Fedora packages are now unusable, so rebuilding them
> would be needed. I'm not sure that this counts as progressing to
> "rolling our own distro" since the rebuild would be fully automatic,
> and that the end result would only have trivial differences. (unless
> I'm missing something in my untested proposal, it wouldn't require any
> significant change in engineering resources from OLPC's side)

OK, so what your actually proposing is essentially becoming a
Secondary Arch [1] of Fedora with some compiler flags to optimise it
for the platforms we need to support? That would be a lot less work
but we'd still need to put a koji builder instance or two in place.
Who will be providing and maintaining that infrastructure?

> Glad to see some interest in reviving support in future versions of
> Fedora, thanks for pointing that out. Fingers crossed.

Agreed. I felt a little kicked in the teeth after the massive flame
fest during the F-12 devel process.



More information about the Devel mailing list