[Fedora-packaging] Re: Firmware packaging, v2
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
> 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