On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 18:13 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 05:08:23PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > I consider the separation of firmware from "other binaries" inside of > > the FPG to be nonsensical and the criteria above to be nonsensical, and > > wish we (FPC) were able to find better criteria. > > I think the package group's mandate is about *how* to package, ACK. > not > *what* to package and whether it's legal, endagers Fedora sponsors, is > in the spirit of Fedora etc. This questions lurking inside of this topic are "how" questions: * "How to package package-fragments source ship/require in binary form" * "When to consider rebuilding from sources not useful". The FPG it tries to narrow this problem to a set of precedences of exception on "what" (firmware), but actually doesn't cover these questions above, except that it wants packagers "to build everything from sources". > E.g. these goals are set from a higher instance and we just provide > matching guidelines. IMO we shouldn't redefine objectives, this needs > to be escalated to <your board here>. Especially if something isn't > spelled out in the current objectives as clear as the > position/distinction towards firmwares and other non-source binaries. The later half of your sentence is what I consider not to be clear. Technically, firmware blobs are "download images", i.e. a container of arbitrary format with arbitrary contents, just like floppy disks images, CDROM images, tarballs or ar-archives. Do you note how the FPG criteria manage to miss the topic? Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
