Kevin Fenzi wrote:
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Question about that: The first requirement is that the file is
non-executable. Does that mean that Fedora cannot ship firmware for
hardware that has a CPU compatible with
On 07/10/2012 03:52 PM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:52:28 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote
Do we have any such firmware at all? Let's stick to practical issues.
Wei don't, as far as I am aware. But with Intel actually preparing
to ship Xeon Phi hardware we might sooner than
Am 14.07.2012 16:19, schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
> If prelink chews on a binary that's currently running, its /proc/self/exe
> essentially goes away. Which can be
> undesirable, for a persistent daemon process.
>
> It took me a while to figure out why my daemon kept breaking all the time,
> when
If prelink chews on a binary that's currently running, its /proc/self/exe
essentially goes away. Which can be undesirable, for a persistent daemon
process.
It took me a while to figure out why my daemon kept breaking all the time,
when it couldn't stat its /proc/self/exe any more.
I suppo
Hi i'm looking for sponsors on this two sugars packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838252
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839730
Can anybody help me on this
Thanks
--
German R S
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail
On 07/09/2012 12:16 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Has something changed with the license on them since they were reviewed
5 or so years ago?
I don't know, but this is _unacceptable_ :
"SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Final, Single User)
*IMPORTANT - READ BEFORE COPYING, INSTALLING OR USING.*
