On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 02:32:56PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 01:01:50PM +0001, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > hmm. i would argue that it's more rightly fw_update(8)'s place to go
> > into that level of detail, not pkg_add(1).
>
> I agree. I'm not too fond of fw_update(1), thoug
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 02:26:19PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>
> > hmm. i would argue that it's more rightly fw_update(8)'s place
> > to go into that level of detail, not pkg_add(1).
>
> The pkg_add(1) manual does talk about PKG_PATH later on,
> so mentioning that a specific class of packages h
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 01:01:50PM +0001, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> hmm. i would argue that it's more rightly fw_update(8)'s place to go
> into that level of detail, not pkg_add(1).
I agree. I'm not too fond of fw_update(1), though synching to the kernel
makes it a necessity.
And pkg_add(1) documen
Hi Jason,
Jason McIntyre wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 01:01:50PM +0001:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Jason McIntyre wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:28:29AM +:
>>> ok, so perhaps the diff below will avoid future confusion.
>> I agree with adding that i
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Jason McIntyre wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:28:29AM +:
>
> > ok, so perhaps the diff below will avoid future confusion.
>
> I agree with adding that information and don't strongly object
> to your wording, but
Hi Jason,
Jason McIntyre wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:28:29AM +:
> ok, so perhaps the diff below will avoid future confusion.
I agree with adding that information and don't strongly object
to your wording, but given that fw_update(1) is just a wrapper
around pkg_add(1), some might consid
On 2012-01-14, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> i ask because we need to watch how we word this. we could reasonably
> assume that people would also run it from time to time just to see if
> there's an update available, right?
Newer firmware versions often require changes to the driver,
so this isn't some
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 06:29:26PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > How often is firmware updated without a maching driver update?
> > fw_update is really just to provide an automated fuction during
> > install or upgrade, the same time when you are getting a new
> > kernel/drier, it would be rare t
> I have a notebook with a couple of devices which require non-free
> firmware. When I installed 5.0-release (amd64 from CD) it asked me if I
> wanted those files downloaded on first boot; when I said YES it
> proceeded to find and download them and everything 'just worked'.
> (This was very conve
> How often is firmware updated without a maching driver update?
> fw_update is really just to provide an automated fuction during
> install or upgrade, the same time when you are getting a new
> kernel/drier, it would be rare that a new firmware is available for an
> existing system, although pote
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:13:07PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2012-01-14, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > > however i'm not sure when the author intended fw_update to be used. i.e.
> > > in the course of upgrading or whenever you please.
> >
> > fw_update is run automatically on the first
Jason McIntyre [j...@cava.myzen.co.uk] wrote:
>
> right. but is there any reason to discourage people from running it when
> they please, or do we just expect it to be done automatically after
> upgrade?
>
> i ask because we need to watch how we word this. we could reasonably
> assume that people
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:13:07PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-01-14, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > however i'm not sure when the author intended fw_update to be used. i.e.
> > in the course of upgrading or whenever you please.
>
> fw_update is run automatically on the first boot after y
On 2012-01-14, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> however i'm not sure when the author intended fw_update to be used. i.e.
> in the course of upgrading or whenever you please.
fw_update is run automatically on the first boot after you upgrade via the
usual installer (bsd.rd / install51.iso / cd51.iso etc).
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>Hi Dave,
>
>Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:14:57PM -0500:
>
>> and then ran 'pkg_add -ui' it was unable to update those files:
>> "Couldn't find updates for uvideo-firmware-1.2p0, iwn-firmware-5.6p0".
>
>The firmwares live in a different p
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 06:51:05PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:14:57PM -0500:
>
> > and then ran 'pkg_add -ui' it was unable to update those files:
> > "Couldn't find updates for uvideo-firmware-1.2p0, iwn-firmware-5.6p0".
>
> The fir
Dave Anderson wrote:
> I have a notebook with a couple of devices which require non-free
> firmware. When I installed 5.0-release (amd64 from CD) it asked me if I
> wanted those files downloaded on first boot; when I said YES it
> proceeded to find and download them and everything 'just worked'.
Hi Dave,
Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:14:57PM -0500:
> and then ran 'pkg_add -ui' it was unable to update those files:
> "Couldn't find updates for uvideo-firmware-1.2p0, iwn-firmware-5.6p0".
The firmwares live in a different package repository,
that's why pkg_add(1) doesn't fi
I have a notebook with a couple of devices which require non-free
firmware. When I installed 5.0-release (amd64 from CD) it asked me if I
wanted those files downloaded on first boot; when I said YES it
proceeded to find and download them and everything 'just worked'.
(This was very convenient; my
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 10:16:11AM -0400, Clint M. Sand wrote:
> man pkg_add states:
>
> -u Update the given pkgname(s), and anything it depends upon.
> If no pkgname is given, pkg_add will update all installed packages.
> This relies on PKG_PATH to figure out the new package names.
>
> However
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 04:28:45PM +0200, Cabillot Julien wrote:
> pkg_add -ui
>
Ah. Thanks. Seems the man page should be changed to be more clear.
"If no pkgname is given and -u is combined with -i, pkg_add will..."
> On 5/6/07, Clint M. Sand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > man pkg_add st
pkg_add -ui
On 5/6/07, Clint M. Sand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> man pkg_add states:
>
> -u Update the given pkgname(s), and anything it depends upon.
> If no pkgname is given, pkg_add will update all installed packages.
> This relies on PKG_PATH to figure out the new package names.
>
> However
man pkg_add states:
-u Update the given pkgname(s), and anything it depends upon.
If no pkgname is given, pkg_add will update all installed packages.
This relies on PKG_PATH to figure out the new package names.
However if I run -u with no package name, it tells me a list of possible
candidates,
23 matches
Mail list logo
