On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 00:33 +0200, poma wrote: > On 22.06.2015 23:55, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 17:44 +0200, poma wrote: > > > > > > Are there any technical or legal issues for all these firmware > > > files > > > not to be included downstream within "linux-firmware" package, > > > with > > > the rest of firmwares? > > > > Whatever the answer to that question, it doesn't seem terribly > > relevant > > to test@. Especially when sending long mails that take lots of time > > for > > people to work out what you're saying (because you never explain, > > leaving people to infer it from reams of cut-n-paste), please take > > care > > that they're on-topic for the list. > > > > Please do not pull the question out of context, and it will stay > relevant -everywhere-, as it is. > For you it's a "long" email, but it's actually technically concise to > whom it may concern. But you're not sending it 'to whom it may concern', you're sending it to multiple public mailing lists. When you post to a public mailing list you're posting to *all* its readers, and you have a duty to ensure your mail is on-topic and comprehensible to that audience. The question of what firmwares to include in the Fedora packages is on -topic for maybe the devel@ list or the kernel list, but unless it's causing some kind of major problem in a QA testing process, it's not particularly relevant for test@. The question of what should be in upstream linux-firmware isn't particularly on-topic for any Fedora list. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
