The blinking cursor causes the processor and GPU to be woken up
frequently. On one of my test systems, this causes somewhere in the
region of 2 Watts of extra power consumption. I'd like to change the
default for this to false. Anyone have any objections?
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
Recently future request for itk apache mpm was declined  by
maintainer of apache (Joe Orton (jorton(a)redhat.com)). Please see bug for
As was mentioned in there discussion I want package it and push to
Fedora (it is open source and maintained). So, main question - is it
normal situation have second package (I intend call it like apache-itk)
with one source, which used in other rpm (apache) in repository? Is
really there any legal issues or etc.?
I think is most correct way is to so-maintain it in main apache package,
but this suggestion also was declined. So, what is correct way to
package and push to Fedora additional apache MPM?
Before reading the mail, be brave people read this blog post first,
especially people from FESCo:
Do comment on that blog post. Afterwards you read my email.
I found it sad that I have to write this email today. Well, it is part
of my contribution to both opensource software and opensource EDA
The subject of this email is "Fedora Project, give me 20 Million Euros
or Free Software" ! Unfortunately, I'm not kidding and even 20 Million
Euros is not enough.
Well, let's get to the point !
I wish to maintain a package called OVM. This package is opensourced
by the two giant EDA Vendors : Cadence and Mentor Graphics, under the
Apache 2.0 license.
However, since there is no opensource tool to use OVM, FESCo has
freezed its entry.
Since when opensource software is more important than opensource content ?
-- About OVM: Open Verification Methodology
The OVM is based on the IEEE 1800 SystemVerilog standard and supports
design and verification engineers developing advanced verification
environments that offer higher levels of integration and portability
of Verification IP. The methodology is non-vendor specific and is
interoperable with multiple languages and simulators. The OVM is fully
open, and includes a robust class library and source code that is
available for download.
-- Explanation of the "Don't kill OpenSource EDA software and its community" cry
About 90% of the opensource software you can use it as a replacement
of another proprietary software. However in the EDA industry this is
not true. There is NO EDA software (whether proprietary or opensource)
that can replace another. If someone tells you the contrary, export
him/her to planet Mars on the spot. NO EDA software is used by users
as the rpm is provided. For each project, you will need to tweak the
software as a user. That's one of the reasons why frontend digital
designers like Tcl and Perl.
Unlike the rest of the opensource SOFTWARE packagers, my users have NO
interest in opensource EDA design tools if in the end they can't
produce hardware with them!!
I have 2 types of users ! the students and the hardware amateurs.
But these are not the ones I'm fighting for ! I'm fighting to seduce
the right people to encourage mass Fedora deployment with EDA tools.
These "right" people are lecturers and EDA engineers. You have noticed
that I didn't mention "analog/digital" engineers yet.
Lecturers will _find_ the right tools for the students so that they
can market themselves when looking for a job.
EDA engineers will be _contacted_ by big vendors to help him choose
the right tool for his/her "analog/digital" engineers. Some EDA
engineers will even be invited for several expensive hotels/dinners.
While the opensource software community talks about how they are proud
of AIGLX, fedora, OOo, Amarok, KDE4,..., I am sad to say that I can
not say the same for Open Hardware.
With Fedora Electronic Lab, we do not only attracted users with
respect to opensource EDA tools, but FEL contributors are heavily
divided into the following communities:
- opensource software : by shipping free EDA tools
- open Hardware : by targeting these persons
I will only consider that WE were successful with FEL if open Hardware
projects/companies HAVE USED opensource EDA tools to design their
hardware. This is a goal. A goal to reach and show what we can
achieved with opensource software.
I'm not talking about ghdl being used to simulate OpenSparc T2 for
example, I'm talking about completing the whole Open Hardware project
to Silicon. Amateurs/home made pcbs is simple.
Bridging these two communities, give us(Fedora)[#1] extra
responsibilities, which we are currently the opensource Leader in EDA
deployment. These responsibilities include maintaining the health of
the opensource EDA software community and encourage continuous
deployment. Unlike the opensource Linux ECO system, the EDA world is
- research and development in silicon.
- infinite number of standards.
- various quality-class proprietary EDA tools are available for free download
Among the industry standards, OVM IEEE 1800 SystemVerilog standard is
under an acceptable license for Fedora's inclusion. As you have surely
guessed the ODF standard was not made standard by some cheap geeks. It
costs money, time and development strategy. We (opensource community)
have nothing such thing to create a standard for electronics! We don't
currently have an opensource simulator for SystemVerilog. Now imagine
OOo without ODF support. Will the opensource software community dump
the ODF initiative ? We don't have human resources to just pop a
simulator tool for systemverilog out of the blue.
Growing Numbers of SV users:
You have certainly heard couple thousands layoffs in the semiconductor
industry this month. Companies are taking drastic measures to cut
expenses, I believe FEL will be attractive for them. Unlike the normal
fedora user, these companies will do mass fedora deployments from the
VMM also suffers the same issue.
--- Additional notes:
I referred "us(Fedora)[#1]" because I strongly believe Fedora IS THE
ONLY ANSWER for the opensource EDA community.
Sorry, users from non-Fedora-based distribution should seriously
change their professional career if they are doing ASIC design.
Why ? : Electronic Design Automation Consortium has established EDA
Industry OS Roadmap guidelines for which platforms EDA vendors and
customers should target for design starts.
For Linux Users, you have RHEL and SLES. Please don't get excited
Linux was attractive because Vista failed to impress the EDA market.
If Windows 7 prove otherwise, EDA Vendors will provide less Linux
support. While these are proprietary software, they are the only way
to program their hardware devices. Take for example, you buy a
development FPGA kit from Altera or Xilinx, you can only program your
FPGA will their free tools on windows. It is free and users don't need
to care about its source code as they can have good support from their
Hence, I have shown you how my users will think and how easy we can
lose linux users. I'm not talking about helping proprietary software,
but avoid dumping software that have been opensourced and are still
human resources : Unlike a normal software, electronic simulation
tools should be mature. Because the hardware being developed are the
one you will find in your brand new cars, airplanes, in various
medical devices. Since these are life critical applications, the
designer will not want a 2-week developed simulator. That is why I'm
saying that I don't think we will see a simulator so soon. According
to FESCo, no simulator -> no entry. Hence I see, no OVM entry before
the next five years and I will have to inform the opensource EDA
community that either the major opensource EDA Leader has discarded
the appreciation of this opensource content and initiative.
Have a look around you further than fedora. Have a global view on the
Answer the following questions:
- Who is the one focussing on electronics for the best electronic user
Hint : compare Ngspice release and LTSpice release !
- Why is that one giving better solutions and user experience ?
- Has OS user experience being more important than electronic design
- Can you bear that you have deliberately giving up Open content ?
Unlike OOo which tends to give OS user experience by replacing
Microsoft Office. For FEL, I don't have replacement of 70% of the
proprietary tools. If you are shutting down the doors on OVM, you are
also claiming fedora is not promoting open content, but only OS user
experience ? I would recommend FESCo to cancel/revisit each Feature
wiki page proposal as they provide more than OS user experience. Also
have a look at the EDA community promoting our Fedora everywhere:
google for more.
Iverilog (which to me had more chance to provide SystemVerilog support
quickly) are focussing on Verilog-AMS which is also very important.
Mixed signal is all around now. The opensource EDA community don't
have that human resources. The 20 Million Euros is about balancing the
losses of that OVM was turned down.
perl-Verilog currently under the Fedora umbrella has incorporated some
extra systemverilog support. This new release will hit fedora mirrors
I am not attacking anyone. I'm just reflecting the current reality. If
Fedora is not an answer for opensource EDA software, the opensource
You will laugh about this :
Give me an example of a software that is free in windows but need a
license on Linux.
It is the case in Electronics.
Help me find an answer to:
"What are the verification solutions Fedora provide ?"
What can opensource software community answer when EDA vendors give
away their software for free ?
I'm going to sleep with failure in my mind.
A mature opensource EDA software costs at least 20 Million Euros.
Don't dump opensource CONTENT!
PS: in Belgium today, we have carried out meteorological measurements
with Hardware designed under Fedora.
=== Members Present ===
* Brian Pepple (bpepple)
* Jarod Wilson (j-rod)
* Kevin Fenzi (nirik)
* Bill Nottingham (notting)
* Jon Stanley (jds2001)
* Dan Horák (sharkcz)
* Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore)
=== Members Absent ===
* Josh Boyer (jwb)
* David Woodhouse (dwmw2)
== Summary ==
=== Features ===
* Stronger Hashes -
Many FESCo members were concerned with breaking preupgrade and yum
upgrades from f9->f11. The feature owner was directed to see if this
could be avoided and revisit the feature next week.
* Architecture Support
FESCo tabled this to revisit this next week. There were questions
about OLPC support and LSTP client machines. Discussion to continue
on fedora-devel list.
* Crash catcher https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/CrashCatcher
FESCo has approved this feature.
* SsytemTap Static Probes
FESCo has approved this feature.
* GCC 4.4 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/gcc4.4
FESCo has approved this feature.
* vmware-requirements, and other 'crutch-for-proprietary-software'
FESCo has decided this is not acceptable content for Fedora.
* FESCo needs to determine whether ovm is acceptable content
FESCo re-iterated that this content is fine for Fedora, but something
in Fedora should be able to use it before adding it to the
repository. Providing it without a way to use it would be a bad user
* FESCo will meet in special session next week to review features.
Time and date to be determined.
IRC log can be found at:
| MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
| create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
| does create that directory.
Despite being in the guidelines as above, more and more unowned
directories are found in Fedora/Rawhide.
They spring up like mushrooms.
There must be reviewers and packagers who don't understand above
guideline and who are not familiar with how to include files vs. directories
in RPM package %files lists.
For every dozen unowned directories that got fixed after reporting it in
bugzilla, it seems as if two new dozen unowned directories appear (or
reappear) in other packages. My script examines only new packages in
Rawhide (with EVR not seen before), and still there is no end to be seen
in the logs. Lots of obvious packaging mistakes which could have been
noticed easily in the .spec file already, but also lots of unowned
directories which reveal missing dependencies. For dozens of bugzilla
tickets, the packagers don't respond. Sooner or later the bug triagers
will threaten with closing such tickets. Reopening them semi-automatically
will lead to an ugly fight.
I think what I'm trying to express here is that it's a lost cause.
Are there any plans to get ati driver 6.10 into F10? I'm getting pretty
lousy results with 6.9 in F10 on my RV370, but promising results with 6.10
and Xorg server 1.5.99. It doesn't work with 1.5.3 though it installs
without any rpm/dependency issues. Anything on the wiki about current
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
Per the Fedora Non-Responsive Maintainer Policy at:
* After another 7 days (now 3 weeks total), the reporter posts a formal
request to the fedora-devel list with the bug link, indicating all reasonable
efforts have been made to contact the maintainer have failed and that they wish
to take over the package.
I would like to trigger the next phase of the non-responsive maintainer policy.
Extensive efforts have been made at various email addresses to contact John but
no replies have been received. In addition two separate bugzilla entries were
made against his package gallery2 asking for his response:
Please remove him from the primary maintainer list for his packages. orphan any
packages that that leaves maintainerless.
Involved packages include ratpoison, squidguard, wordpress, bugzilla, gallery2.
Jon Ciesla (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474870#c7) requested
maintainership for gallery2. He has already provided updates.
hereby starting the next "what services are really needed" flamewar ;).
No, really, have a look at that bootchart:
They claim that their netbook boots in 7-8s with moblin alpha.
Ok, they start xfce instead of gnome/kde but just think of booting that
thing into gdm. This would already completely exceed the 10s startup
feature of fedora 12.
And look at what they start: udev, hal, dbus, all those things that tend
to slow down boot are there (well, no sendmail daemon).
So how can they do that?
The mt-daapd package is now an orphan. I have decided to stop maintaining
the package because I am now using my own dmapd software. Dmapd supports
DPAP in addition to DAAP. I hope to create a dmapd package for Fedora
in the near term.