On 23.06.2015 00:51, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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. > I *test* this on *Rawhide*, thus *Fedora*, therefore literally it is relevant everywhere, including here. -_- -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
