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 > <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> 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
