Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 188478
Review Request: fxload - Firmware download to EZ-USB devices
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:30 EST
Spec Name or Url: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/fxload-2002_04_11.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/fxload-2002_04_11-1.src.rpm
Description: firmware loader was removed from FC5, but is still needed by some apps (e.g., plextor tv402u)
- Source0 should be a full URL
- Macros should be used instead of hard-coded paths
What is the macro for /sbin? I can't seem to find it.
There isn't one.
In that case, I think I have answered all questions and an updated fxload
spec is available. (I fixed Source0 as requested)
# Copyright (c) 2001-2002 by Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
# Cypress Semiconductor Corporation hereby grants a copyright license to
# use or redistribute this firmware image, in text or binary form as
# required, only in conjunction with devices using a Cypress USB
# microcontroller. Every copy in any form of the firmware shall include
# Cypress copyright legends.
is at the top of a3load.hex. Is this really suitable for disiribution, in source
or binary format? (Note that this was never shipped at least in binary format in
the core package.)
Mass-block FE-NEEDSPONSOR for the six review requestsÂ¹ of Neal Becker. Neal,
when you get sponsorship, you will have to unblock it for all your requests.
Â¹)Â Actually the four that do not block yet FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR, as submitter was sponsored in:
Well, no. *I* was sponsored in bug #190070, but the reporter of the current
bug (fxload) is Neal Becker. In bug #191473, Hans de Goede has offered to Neal
to be his sponsor, but he wants to review several requests of Neal, before.
Sorry, I must have gotten confused somewhere there.
Neal is now sponsored tho (in bug #205023).
What's the current status of this package? It is needed by various USB devices.
Regarding the license: apart from a3load.hex I see no problem. a3load.hex is an
optional second-stage loader. Its source is included in the development kit of
the device, but I'm not sure about the license.
In the worst case, you should be able to remove it without harming the main
functionality of the package: it is used later as a .hex file and not used in
the build process itself. Also note that it is firmware: code that runs on the
In my view there is no problem with the license since the License owner is
included. That what this text try to say no?
Thought it conform (!? need to confim ?) to the extras rules which can now
provides binaries (and sources) firmware which are needed to support hardware.
(exemple has been discussed with ipw2200-firmware ).
Thought the Spec file provides 404...
You can see #218887 but version is the same...
*** Bug 218887 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Do you still want to submit this package?
The URLs in the initial submission give me a 'no route to host' error.
If you do, please upload current versions again, and I can try and get a ruling
on the licence.
If I don't hear from you in 1 week, I will close this request.
I no longer have any personal interest in this - but I can make the package
available to anyone who wants it.
ok. I will go ahead and close this, and if someone would like to resubmit it,
they can contact you for a copy of the package?
Yes (as long as I still have it)