I agree that it is "firmware" load to device and run only at devise side.
It is OK to approve? вт, 12 нояб. 2019 г. в 07:23, Baxi <[email protected]>: > > So could it be accepted? > > On Nov 11, 2019 16:55, Nicolas Chauvet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le lun. 11 nov. 2019 à 13:22, FeRD <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 7:14 AM FeRD <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> The ideal would be if they could get their device-side server binary > >> packaged and submitted to Google Play as a downloadable app. That's what > >> KDE Connect did, with their Android app. Then, the Linux side only needs > >> to require that the app be installed on the device, no transferring binary > >> packages or whatever. > > > > > > Failing that, if the binary is really just for the device... could we > > package the source for the binary, so the enduser can build it themselves > > (if they have the SDK installed)? I mean, it's not like anything that > > requires you to install a binary file on your Android device over the adb > > (debugging) connection is really "point-and-click" simple anyway. Telling > > users they first have to build (or download) the device-side server binary > > for themselves doesn't really seem that onerous... relatively. > > I haven't followed everything in this thread, but if the binary is not > meant to be executed on the fedora host but on other host, we could > use the Fedora firmware exception. Specially if this can avoid to > import a foreign toolchain (Android SDK/NDK). > > -- > - > > Nicolas (kwizart) > _______________________________________________ > rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
