ivtv - firmware - v4l-cx2341x*.fw - Upstream & Fedora

[poma]

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 at . 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 at . 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.

-_-