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@. 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@. The question of what should be in
upstream linux-firmware isn't particularly on-topic for any Fedora
list.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net