Re: firmware status for eagle-usb-*
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >Given that the entire purpose of the driver is to actually *drive a
> >device*, and that it can't do that at all without the firmware, then the
> No, apparently you do not understand how the driver, hardware and
> firmware interact. The driver is fully functional as is: the firmware is
> needed by the hardware device, not by the driver.
This comes back to the same issue:
Is there a dependency relationship between the package that provides
the driver and the firmware itself?
If the package requires the presence of a firmware file which must be
uploaded to the device at runtime in order to be useful at all, then
the package has a dependency relationship with the firmware.
If the package doesn't need to upload a firmware file to the device in
order to be useful at all, then it probably doesn't have a dependency
relationship with the firmware.
In any event, whether or not a dependency actually exists really isn't
a subject for this list to discuss as it has nothing to do with the
license, legality, or DFSG status of a package; only policy and the
package's Depends:x are at issue here. You can raise it on -devel if
it actually occurs, or users can file bugs against such a package if
they feel improper dependencies are in place.
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
-- Mark Twain