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,
*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
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?