| 1 |
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 11:09:15 +0200 |
| 2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 09/02/13 11:06, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> 2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu>: |
| 8 |
> >>> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the |
| 9 |
> >>> newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one. |
| 10 |
> >>> |
| 11 |
> >> That should be probably the best approach, to actually kill of the |
| 12 |
> >> lone ones and keep the linux-firmware only. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > I disagree. Why should we force users to install lots of crap (some of |
| 15 |
> > it being non-free) that they will never need because they don't have |
| 16 |
> > the hardware? |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Ulrich |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Maybe you don't understand how linux-firmware package works. It only |
| 22 |
> installs what you want -- it uses the savedconfig eclass to handle a |
| 23 |
> list of wanted firmwares. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I admit I never bothered to trim down my install of it, but the point is |
| 26 |
> YOU CAN do it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I don't think that solves the license problem properly. Say, if user |
| 29 |
doesn't want non-free software, he's going to have the whole package |
| 30 |
masked. He'd have to work-around license + savedconfig. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Now that I look at it, it seems that the ebuild doesn't even put all |
| 33 |
necessary licenses into LICENSE. I may be wrong but the git repo seems |
| 34 |
to have a lot of non-standard licenses. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Best regards, |
| 38 |
Michał Górny |
Archives