Bug#669074: ITP: sigrok-firmware -- firmware files for various logic analyzers
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:39:06AM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:11:55PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 02:05 +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > > Package: wnpp
> > > Severity: wishlist
> > > Owner: Uwe Hermann <uwe@debian.org>
> > >
> > > * Package name : sigrok-firmware
> > > Version : 0.1
> > > Upstream Author : sigrok developers, others
> > > * URL : http://www.sigrok.org
> > > * License : GPL, BSD, others
> > > Programming Lang: C, others
> > > Description : firmware files for various logic analyzers
> > >
> > > Collection of firmware files for various logic analyzers.
> > >
> > > The current sigrok package (which I maintain) will become a meta-package
> > > depending on all sigrok-related packages.
> >
> > This package will be non-free. So if you make sigrok depend on it, you
> > have to put sigrok in contrib.
>
> Nope, firmware doesn't necessarily imply non-free.
Of course - but I looked on the web site and could only find a
sigrok-firmware git repository with binaries and no source.
> In our case we have
> at least the 'fx2lafw' firmware which is written by myself and another
> developer from scratch and which supports multiple hardware devices, and
> is of course GPL'd.
>
> http://sigrok.org/wiki/Fx2lafw
Nice.
> There could be others which are BSD licensed or such in future, too.
>
> Though you're right that there will also be some non-free firmwares, not
> sure what the best route is here.
>
> Maybe a sigrok-firmware metapackage and then sigrok-firmware-free, and
> sigrok-firmware-nonfree as with the Linux firmwares? The sigrok
> metapackage must then only depend on 'sigrok-firmware-free' and whoever
> wants the non-free ones must explicitly install 'sigrok-firmware-nonfree'
> or the non-free 'sigrok-firmware' metapackage then, right?
That makes sense.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
Reply to: