From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D80B138B48 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:22:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DBD3A21C002; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECAEAE059B for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389D1208EE for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:22:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:22:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=e34E8g8fSBG08i4RdP1F1eXbbFI=; b=kHHo INvptzaqpJ7iwS2WV16vnZ63+o6Cb1erEjVLez/E/Jm82SebakvLqIvrs2jNMvs8 gcoUvDQewQh6MtqITlJD3c6H2qDhlZpb9LmCeREWaHcAFhvIH5UzNV0VHQxkqu64 vV6aja3N740+nkzy2fOGP46rRbTMottcw33WAKo= X-Sasl-enc: 4H/0BfsOS4X54zKDllzjWQz1PYcmN/gQsLGBMYqqNsps 1361384521 Received: from localhost (unknown [198.134.93.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CA8CE4824EB; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:22:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:22:32 -0800 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: linux-firmware Message-ID: <20130220182232.GA11082@kroah.com> References: <511F9A9F.8040206@gentoo.org> <511F9ADE.2050503@flameeyes.eu> <20767.41371.270947.851486@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <5120654B.6050406@gentoo.org> <20768.43798.568305.561675@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <512389BF.9090504@gentoo.org> <5124CCE9.50203@flameeyes.eu> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: c909604d-ef9a-499c-b775-79f675d6d124 X-Archives-Hash: 3a9fcc0a04d036eb154eca1befb09548 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:03:47AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò > wrote: > > On 20/02/2013 13:02, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'm actually wondering if that makes sense with git when a specific > >> commit is referenced, since everything is content-hashed anyway. > >> Perhaps we just need to confirm that git actually checks the hash. > > > > The policy is also because any ebuild relying on a network service to > > work cannot be assured to work at any point in time: not only it depends > > on the network connection of the user, but it also depends on the > > service to be available. > > Makes sense in general. > > If there really are firmware blobs that are only available via git and > which cannot be redistributed we might consider whether it makes sense > to not support them entirely, or to force them to be masked. Did anyone actually consider the fact that there should not be non-redistributable firmware blobs in the upstream git tree in the first place, as it is the thing that is doing the redistributing originally? Has anyone pointed out any problems with the package to upstream if you have found them? If so, what did they say? greg k-h