http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 7/11/07, Manas Saksena <msaksena at marvell.com> wrote:
> I agree. But, it is not necessary unrealistic to allow derivative
> distros under the Fedora project umbrella.

I think it is necessarily unrealistic for that to happen when you take
into account
branding policy considerations.  If the bits be wrapped up are not
under the directly accessible via the centralized fedora codebase
thing (cvs or whatever comes after it) then you simply cannot expect
that collection of software to be able to be called Fedora.  Its
unrealistic that this situation is going to change over night, even
with new technical bits that make it easier for people to actually
produced derived collections.

> And, it is certainly fine for us to do these outside the scope of the
> Fedora project umbrella. Fedora is used as an upstream for many embedded
> distros already. Our goal is to make it easy for the various embedded
> ARM distributions (including the ones we create ourselves) to make use
> of the Fedora-ARM as the upstream.

Uhm, is are current examples of packaging level problems that package
maintainers need to address for packages to work on ARM?  As compared
to... upstream codebase issues that upstream needs to patch?

-jef