| 1 |
Kent Fredric schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On 23 July 2012 08:48, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> A fair point, suggestion retracted. I'm on board with sys-firmware as |
| 4 |
>> well, but I do see some advantage of the current way of putting the |
| 5 |
>> firmware in the category of what it is for... |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If you wanted, you could do something like x11-drivers/ do , and have |
| 8 |
> a standard of adding a little subcategorization: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Could you be more specific? What does x11-drivers/ do that applies here? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> sys-firmware/video-ati |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If it is really desired to state the firmware purpose in |
| 15 |
category/package, then I would prefer |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
firmware-gpu/radeon-ucode |
| 18 |
firmware-video/cx18-firmware |
| 19 |
firmware-audio/alsa-firmware |
| 20 |
firmware-net/isdn-firmware |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
or similar. This would be better than deviating from upstream package name. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives