On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 03:03:30AM +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: > Various parts of the upstream release are binary only and proprietary, > therefore a binary "repackaging" of the NVidia self-extracting archive is > a bit ethically "questionable", putting it mildly. Not that I'm judging > other efforts (Axel), just stating that personally I wouldn't do it. In a > perfect world, NVidia would officially release the full driver/glx SDK as > GPL'd OSS, but I think we all know that's never going to happen. I do not understand the logic. Either one rejects nvidia's policy, then you do not ship a src.rpm at all, or one lives with it and builds the binaries as well. There are other cases where proprietary software is packages in src.rpm only, because the license tells that is to be redistributed as a whole and unchanged, forcing the building of the software on the users' boxes, but that is a completely different matter, not even applicable to the nvidia graphics drivers. (check the JPackage project for some examples and a better explanation) > The Livna source RPM contains the original upstream release intact, > [...] Which is not different at ATrpms. > Rebuilding only takes a few seconds, but if you really want a binary only > solution then stick with Axel Thimm's binaries at: > > http://apt.physik.fu-berlin.de/fedora/1/en/i386/RPMS.at-testing/ > > (also in "at-bleeding") "binary only"? You imply you have access to nvidia's sources? BTW that's the "wrong" URL, the correct one is http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/nvidia-graphics/ ("wrong" in the sense that this is the apt view to the repo, while the correct one is what you should look with a browser at) -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpFiyzwynI5w.pgp
Description: PGP signature
