On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 18:13 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 05:08:23PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 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.
I think the package group's mandate is about *how* to package,
ACK.
not
*what* to package and whether it's legal, endagers Fedora sponsors, is
in the spirit of Fedora etc.
This questions lurking inside of this topic are "how" questions:
* "How to package package-fragments source ship/require in binary form"
* "When to consider rebuilding from sources not useful".
The FPG it tries to narrow this problem to a set of precedences of
exception on "what" (firmware), but actually doesn't cover these
questions above, except that it wants packagers "to build everything
from sources".
E.g. these goals are set from a higher instance and we just provide
matching guidelines. IMO we shouldn't redefine objectives, this needs
to be escalated to <your board here>. Especially if something isn't
spelled out in the current objectives as clear as the
position/distinction towards firmwares and other non-source binaries.
The later half of your sentence is what I consider not to be clear.
Technically, firmware blobs are "download images", i.e. a container of
arbitrary format with arbitrary contents, just like floppy disks images,
CDROM images, tarballs or ar-archives.
Do you note how the FPG criteria manage to miss the topic?
Ralf