On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:37:03 -0500, Isaac David wrote: > Luke Shumaker wrote : > > - b43-fwcutter is not replaced by, but is provided by > > libre/b43-tools. For one, I am flabbergasted that whatever freedom > > issues b43-fwcutter has aren't also issues with b43-tools. > > Secondly, b43-tools should probably replaces=(b43-fwcutter), or be > > renamed to b43-fwcutter. > > i'm scratching my head over this too. their respective PKGBUILDs > aren't like each other, but where does b43-tools even come from? it's > not in the AUR. > > [1]: > https://git.parabola.nu/packages/libretools.git/commit/?h=isacdaavid&id=313d1ee619363eca0b8b0742a2d58c9ce18877fd > [2]: https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2017-October/005936.html
I asked Emulatorman on #hyperbola Rough timeline: - core/b43-fwcutter is only useful with non-free firmware - core/b43-fwcutter is blacklisted because of the above - openfwwf, a libre b43 firmware, is released - Emulatorman packages libre/b43-tools for openfwwf, either not realizing that core/b43-fwcutter would work with openfwwf, or forgetting that core/b43-fwcutter ever existed. The b43-fwcutter program in both packages is identical. The difference is that b43-tools also includes other utilities like b43-asm. So, what we should do: - unblacklist core/b43-fwcutter - have libre/b43-tools provides=() and conflicts=() b43-fwcutter, but not replaces=() - verify that openfwwf can be built with core/b43-fwcutter (that it doesn't need b43-asm or any of the other programs included in libre/b43-tools but not core/b43-fwcutter). * if it can: - move b43-tools to pcr - have openfwwf reference b43-fwcutter instead of b43-tools -- Happy hacking, ~ _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.parabola.nu https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev