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