On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:04:24PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:22 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > Source: linux > > Version: 4.10~rc6-1~exp1 > > Severity: wishlist > > X-Debbugs-CC: open-ath9k-htc-firmw...@packages.debian.org > > > > Now that open-ath9k-htc-firmware has been accepted into Debian > > unstable, please add "Recommends: firmware-ath9k-htc" to the > > metadata for the linux-image-* packages in Debian experimental.
Not many linux-image-* users have ath9k-htc hardware so I do not see how this recommendation can make sense here. The package should have provided appropriate AppStream metainformation so Debian should be able to suggest installing it when the device is plugged in for the first time. > As this firmware has gone through at least one ABI bump, I think we > need to plan for a future ABI bump. So far the idea was to upload a package named firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 after the next ABI bump. There's no reason why firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 shouldn't be able to co-exist on the same system with e.g. firmware-ath9k-htc-1.6.0, as the user should be able to choose different kernel versions on boot, and hence different firmware versions will be appropriate. > Therefore: > - You should not name the files as simply '1.dev.0' versions, but by > the implemented ABI version (as the driver expects by default). The code that's currently packaged is definitely not 1.4.0 code, it got some non-trivial changes (not affecting ABI though) after the 1.4.0 was released. So naming an intermediate version in any way other than 1.dev.0 would only add to the confusion IMHO. Probably it would make sense to have the minor number indicate a subversion of same-ABI firmwares, but for some reasons the kernel driver maintainers decided against that. I hope Oleksij will correct me if I'm missing something here. -- Be free, use free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) software! mailto:fercer...@gmail.com