Hello dear Embedded SIG,
We have received many requests from users for more embedded support on fedora. My knowledge in this field is limited and thereby I'm reaching to you.
Currently, at Fedora, we have Fedora-Electronic-Lab, Fedora Arm and Fedora Embedded all focussing on different kind of electronics. The actual status is FEL and F-arm have a mailing list and leaving Embedded SIG on "one on one" contact. But F-arm mailing list does not have any traffic. Thereby I'm inviting you to join FEL mailing list
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-electronic-lab-list in hope to join forces and provide a better design and simulation platform on fedora.
During FOSDEM, I talked to Max and Greg requesting them to get someone inside RH to include eCos on fedora. However it is not very clear for many people in terms of embedded where is the limit. Is it only design tools or should provide an additional OS ? This question has popped several times and needs your input to clarify our roadmap.
Kind regards, Chitlesh
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
During FOSDEM, I talked to Max and Greg requesting them to get someone inside RH to include eCos on fedora. However it is not very clear for many people in terms of embedded where is the limit. Is it only design tools or should provide an additional OS ? This question has popped several times and needs your input to clarify our roadmap.
I don't regard this as a problem specific to embedded package. To me, "embedded packages" are normal packages like any others, i.e. are subject to the normal rules for including packages into Fedora.
The actual problems with embedded packages are elsewhere: - Their target audience is comparatively small => Little "end-user demand", little "developer interest".
- Embedded packages tend to be huge. => Mainstream users will accuse "Embedded stuff" to unnecessarily bloat Fedora.
- Embedded packages tend to be technically complex (e.g. cross-compilation) and to diverge from "native packaging" (e.g. shipping source code as contents) => Fedora's review/maintenance infrastructure (reviews) and tools (esp: rpm) are not in a shape to make "getting such embedded packages into Fedora" easy. They often end-up in rejected, withdrawn submissions combined with endless discussions on details.
- Due to the limited audience of "embedded products", the overhead/difficulties getting packages into Fedora implies and different objectives ("embedded vendor" vs. Fedora/RH), vendors of "embedded products" tend to provide packages of their own. => Adding their packages to Fedora is of limited interest to them.
Ralf
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The actual problems with embedded packages are elsewhere:
- Their target audience is comparatively small
=> Little "end-user demand", little "developer interest".
Hello Ralf,
You are quite negative on this embedded solutions on fedora.
FEL apps are mostly ASIC oriented and the target audience is even smaller than embedded. Nevertheless, FEL did attract a fair number of eyes. We currently have a good set of embedded solutions included on fedora (thanks embedded sig). I would rather wish little by little we shape that field for better design experience. I need your support on this :)
Kind regards, Chitlesh
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 17:59 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
During FOSDEM, I talked to Max and Greg requesting them to get someone inside RH to include eCos on fedora. However it is not very clear for many people in terms of embedded where is the limit. Is it only design tools or should provide an additional OS ? This question has popped several times and needs your input to clarify our roadmap.
You want to package eCos, or the eCos tools (ecosconfig, basically)?
The latter would certainly make sense. And is fairly small.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
You want to package eCos, or the eCos tools (ecosconfig, basically)?
The latter would certainly make sense. And is fairly small.
Hello David,
Would you mind start rpmbuild its package for us :) ? I will stand by you.
Kind regards, Chitlesh