Been playing with how I'd make the kernel package deal with the new
'make firmware_install' stuff. Currently looks something like this.
I suspect that (for now) we should make the kernel binary packages
depend on kernel-firmware?
Should the package own the /lib/firmware/ directory?
Ideally
On Monday 09 June 2008 06:04:08 am David Woodhouse wrote:
Been playing with how I'd make the kernel package deal with the new
'make firmware_install' stuff. Currently looks something like this.
I suspect that (for now) we should make the kernel binary packages
depend on kernel-firmware?
David Woodhouse wrote:
Been playing with how I'd make the kernel package deal with the new
'make firmware_install' stuff. Currently looks something like this.
I suspect that (for now) we should make the kernel binary packages
depend on kernel-firmware?
Yeah, seems the sanest thing to do at
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 08:39 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Not quite sure. udev owns it right now. Could have multiple ownership so as
to
not Requires: udev. Could possibly be something that should move to the
filesystem package. I think I might lean toward making that directory owned
by
David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 08:39 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Not quite sure. udev owns it right now. Could have multiple ownership so as to
not Requires: udev. Could possibly be something that should move to the
filesystem package. I think I might lean toward making that
Jarod Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Ideally we'll want kernel-firmware to be a .noarch.rpm, but we can't get
that until we start to build it from a separate srpm.
We actually *can* make it noarch without much effort -- remember, the kernel
is a special beast that actually does get a
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:46 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Another issue that we never really solved was that we really need to
have one firmware package per firmware (group) so that others can
possibly override their firmware without replacing the entire
kernel-firmware package and affecting
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:51 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
K. I guess I'm just raising it so we're aware of it. It's not exactly
a loss, but my fear is that once we make it possible for someone else
to replace all the kernel firmware just to update their buggy one,
then they'll rush out and do this
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 15:53 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:51 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
K. I guess I'm just raising it so we're aware of it. It's not exactly
a loss, but my fear is that once we make it possible for someone else
to replace all the kernel firmware
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 03:15:05PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 09:40 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:04:08AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Been playing with how I'd make the kernel package deal with the new
'make firmware_install' stuff.
Don Zickus wrote:
I suspect that (for now) we should make the kernel binary packages
depend on kernel-firmware?
Should the package own the /lib/firmware/ directory?
Ideally we'll want kernel-firmware to be a .noarch.rpm, but we can't get
that until we start to build it from a separate srpm.
I
Jarod Wilson wrote:
We were trying to do this with RHEL (jcm was working on this). One
of the
issues I brought up (which no one had a solution for) was the case
for a
bad firmware for storage devices. Currently they are built into the
kernel. So if you stumble upon bad firmware, you just
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:57AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Don Zickus wrote:
I suspect that (for now) we should make the kernel binary packages
depend on kernel-firmware?
Should the package own the /lib/firmware/ directory?
Ideally we'll want kernel-firmware to be a .noarch.rpm, but we
Don Zickus wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:57AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Don Zickus wrote:
I suspect that (for now) we should make the kernel binary packages
depend on kernel-firmware?
Should the package own the /lib/firmware/ directory?
Ideally we'll want kernel-firmware to be a
14 matches
Mail list logo
