request: can somebody please port googleearth-package to fedora?
snecklifter at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 02:18:21 UTC 2008
On 07/02/2008, Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> wrote:
> Christopher Brown wrote:
> > On 07/02/2008, Douglas McClendon <dmc.fedora at filteredperception.org> wrote:
> >> Christopher Brown wrote:
> >>> On 07/02/2008, Douglas McClendon <dmc.fedora at filteredperception.org> wrote:
> >>>> I've been meaning to do this myself for a long time, but I've just got a
> >>>> lot of other higher priorities. I don't suppose I could implore someone
> >>>> else into doing the work for me? Shouldn't be real hard.
> >>>> Wouldn't it be cool to be able to append a teeny little kickstart
> >>>> postscript, and then end up with a livecd or system that has GE
> >>>> installed for all users?
> >>>> http://packages.debian.org/etch/googleearth-package
> >>> It doesn't have an open source license so can't be included in Fedora
> >>> of course. Which makes it OT for this list IMO.
> >> I suspect this is a point you understand, but for the sake of clarity
> >> I'll highlight-
> >> The "googleearth-package" package/.deb/[theoretical .rpm], absolutely
> >> DOES have an open source license.
> >> What the _tool_ that it _provides_, does, is to generate a
> >> non-open-source rpm from a simple commandline invocation and network access.
> >> Please, it's fine if you don't want to be the one to do this, but from a
> >> legal and open-source perspective, I think that
> >> googleearth-package*.[s]rpm belongs in fedora just as much as the
> >> current .deb belongs in debian.
> > Yeah, I got the inference. qv. the script that downloads restricted
> > content on the Fedora Games DVD. So why don't we package a script that
> > configures the nvidia binary driver?
> Well I don't know why you couldn't, but I think what livna is doing in this area
> is a superior solution anyway.
Yes, sorry, question was rhetorical and I should've indicated this. Or
at the very least opening the idea to further debate.
The googleearth-package Douglas referred to appears to do little more
than grab the binary, extract into a chroot and build a debian-happy
.deb from that. Other than modifying to the binary to suit, it would
just be a method of circumventing the "No closed source software"
policy of Fedora. If we are to okay this, why hasn't this been done
for other popular closed source linux apps/drivers such as the nvidia
Please note I am definitely *not* advocating it should be.
More information about the fedora-devel-list