[Fedora-packaging] Re: Announcing Dribble a new addon repo for Fedora Extras users

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 09:42 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> writes:
> 
> RC> This case clearly violates:
> RC> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceRequirement
> 
> Except that it's firmware.

C.f. below: I am questioning the separation between "firmware" and
"binary".

> RC> and also is not covered by
> RC> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware
> 
> It seems to me that it is.
> 
> "Some applications and drivers require binary-only firmware to
> function."
> 
> OK, this is an application (an emulator) which requires the host
> system's binary firmware in order to function.
> 
> "The files are non-executable (note: this means that the files cannot
> run on their own, not that they are just chmod -x)"
> 
> Check.
Only a matter of mime-types, resp. of the way an emulator is being
launched.

> "The files are not libraries."
> 
> Check.
Irrelevant. Traditional libraries (ar-archives) are just a form of packaging.

> "The files are standalone, not embedded in executable or library code."
> 
> Check.
Irrelevant, implementation detail. 

Such images can easily be transformed between different representations.
Technically it doesn't matter if they are loaded from external files
into memory or are directly embedded into a application's memory.

> "Explicit permission is given by the owner to freely distribute
> without restrictions (this permission must be included, in "writing",
> with the files in the packaging)"
> 
> Check.
ACK.

> "The files must be necessary for the functionality of open source code
> being included in Fedora."
> 
> Check.
ACK.

> I assume you disagree with one or more of these, but I'm not sure which.
> 
> RC> These ROMs aren't a linux system's firmware, these are a foreign
> RC> system's firmware, to be interpreted by an interpreter (emulator).
> 
> Precisely.  Are you drawing the distinction between firmware that is
> executed by hardware that that which is executed by emulated hardware,
> perhaps?

Absolutely not. I am not questioning allowing such binaries (I am all
for it), I am questioning the Fedora Packaging Guidelines.

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.

Consider, an emulator's "firmware" from a Linux's system's perspective
is not any different from other "binary shipped applications" to be run
on an interpreter.

Ralf