Fedora Board Recap 2007-JUL-31

[Jesse Keating]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:45:00 -0700
Manas Saksena <msaksena at marvell.com> wrote:

> So, what is needed is a recognition that this is a valid use-case that
> the Fedora project benefits from. And, that the world is more than x86
> systems, using grub, running from hard-drive, etc. So, you dont
> restrict their use unnecessarily. And, if that is done, then the
> derivative distros can add the capabilities to these tools and push
> them back for everyone to benefit from.
> 
> Along the same lines, the advantage of fedora for me is that in my
> local package repository, I only have to make changes if/when
> necessary. And, I can ride on the common package repository. So, for
> Fedora-ARM, I want the base repository to be identical to the Fedora
> repository. And, then, I want to be able to derive from it and create
> custom distributions. So, all that is needed is to not make this
> unnecessarily difficult. And, it is exactly what the OLPC project is
> doing.

My question would have to be then, how are we getting in your way?  I
speak for myself but I know the feelings of many, and we /absolutely/
wish to see derivatives made of Fedora.  More than just "I cut up the
packages this way!".  Actual changes.  Cases we haven't thought of
before, things we've been too afraid to try.  We're doing things to
make this easier, like a new campaign to make it even easier to swap
out our Fedora branding for more generic ones or your own.  What else
can we do to foster this desire to play with the bits and make your own
distribution?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070802/f4a4f99c/attachment.bin