[Arm-netbook] upstreaming the fex for the eoma

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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.
>
> ok..
>
> 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 :)

 l.