On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:24:24PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Just a minor edit to the previous proposal. > > I'd like the firmware section of the packaging guidelines modified > to add: > > 1) Firmware packages are given the Group: tag of Firmware > > 2) The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification should > be set to: > > "Redistributable firmware, no modification permitted" > > I'd write something for the PackagingDrafts, but it's locked down. > Can we get this approved? Why do firmwares need to be special-cased like that? Firmwares are special in that they needed the explicit exemption from the otherwise open source definition, but when it comes to packaging they should be treated like all the rest, e.g. 1) no one is fond of the Groups tag, but that would be the first deviation from the set set in stone ages ago for no good cause. And "System Environment/Base" seems adequate enough to cover both kernelland and userland firmwares. 2) If we need to define a non-open source license we should drop the "firmware" part if it. I think what you want is to quickly select firmware packages. Maybe that's better done with having firmwares always prefix the package name instead with "firmware-"? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgphokJHuoa8h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
