1 |
Sébastien Fabbro posted on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:55:20 -0800 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> To make myself clearer, the tar ball includes a few binary rpms and a |
4 |
> installer blob. Both icc and ifc tar ball include the mkl, idb and some |
5 |
> common library rpms. If we go for a kde-split with a mirror restrict |
6 |
> approach, users would still have to download the big (~800Mb) tar balls. |
7 |
> Only users with use of all (icc, idb, ifc, mkl, ipp, tbb) intel software |
8 |
> would benefit of downloading them. It is also the fact Intel has a |
9 |
> history of changing their packaging system. Not to mention that a rpm |
10 |
> split seems to me lot simpler to maintain and quicker to package for me |
11 |
> than the kde-split mirror-restricted approach, and the fact my interest |
12 |
> for these packages is limited. |
13 |
|
14 |
OK, makes sense... as long as there's legal cover to do it. If there's |
15 |
not, then we're back to doing the split. And asking about the legal |
16 |
cover is what this thread's all about. Fair enough. |
17 |
|
18 |
I was simply wondering if the split had been given due consideration as I |
19 |
didn't get that from the original post, but it appears so. Thanks. |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
23 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
24 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |