User:MartinDengler/Commentaries:SoaSonXO: Difference between revisions
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
=== non-Fedora bits === | === non-Fedora bits === | ||
* Should Soas2's software artifacts include non-Fedora (that is, non-upstream) bits or yum repositories? For example: a) OLPC kernel (2.6.25); or b) | * Should Soas2's software artifacts include non-Fedora (that is, non-upstream) bits or yum repositories? For example: a) OLPC kernel (2.6.25); or b) Via wireless drivers? | ||
:Though (and this is potentially a big "though") these bits/repos must be supported by SugarLabs without any upstream assistance (this statement is a bit less equivocal than strictly necessary), they would provide a solution with a lot more working features. For example, it's hard to imagine an accepted XO-1 solution without power management, or an accepted Eee (is that Via???) solution without wireless. However, these may not be enough of SoaS's target audience to merit the additional work. | :Though (and this is potentially a big "though") these bits/repos must be supported by SugarLabs without any upstream assistance (this statement is a bit less equivocal than strictly necessary), they would provide a solution with a lot more working features. For example, it's hard to imagine an accepted XO-1 solution without power management, or an accepted Eee (is that Via???) solution without wireless. However, these may not be enough of SoaS's target audience to merit the additional work. | ||