[Arm-netbook] upstreaming the fex for the eoma
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at lkcl.net
Mon Dec 16 19:12:20 GMT 2013
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Marco Martin <notmart at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 16 December 2013, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> ... put [deliberately] like that, it's not really a choice... :)
>> i realise however that you need something to work with in the
>> short-term. you are free to do that, but if you want to submit an
>> "upstream" fex file, you are free to call it whatever you wish as long
>> as it does not have the words "eoma" or "eoma68" in it. i trust that
>> this is clear.
> right now i'm packaging an eoma68 fex as part of a clone repository (so not
> upstreamed yet)
if you were helping to develop the base eoma68 fex file pending
conversion to a base device-tree: yes.
> is this ok?
now that you mention it - i hadn't thought about this before that's
why! - really, no, it isn't, because people may become confused and
think that the fex file was authoritative, and it isn't.
> or i can do a different separated package with it with a different name
probably a better idea, now that it's come up :)
More information about the arm-netbook