[Fedora-packaging] Re: Firmware packaging, v2

Bill Nottingham notting at redhat.com
Fri Feb 23 17:36:01 UTC 2007

Axel Thimm (Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net) said: 
> 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.

*shrug* I figured it's best to be more descriptive rather than less.

> 2) If we need to define a non-open source license we should drop the
>    "firmware" part if it.

We need to be able to clearly delineate the firmware that is
not modifiable/open source. (This is needed to properly word the
EULA). As that's the only thing we're shipping
that is like that (AFAIK), the license tag is the best place
to standardize.

> 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-"?

It's not really 'firmware' packages per se - something like the
zd1211 firmware, which is GPL, doesn't need as strict of control.
Moreover, by changing the name, you break the 'follow-upstream'
part of the packaging guidelines.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list