| 1 |
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:42:11 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I would justify it through keeping things split and bit-exact clean, |
| 5 |
> instead of tightly integrated. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Separate ebuilds mean that: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> - each firmware has proper license, |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> - each firmware can be installed separately and it is _clean_ which |
| 12 |
> firmwares are actually installed (think of binpkgs), |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> - each firmware can be upgraded when it needs to be (alternatively: all |
| 15 |
> firmwares are re-installed over and over again when new firmware is |
| 16 |
> added). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> And I wouldn't mind having even 200 sys-firmware/ packages. And don't |
| 19 |
> tell me that firmwares change every month, these are particularly |
| 20 |
> maintenance-free packages. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> And I don't mind having meta-packages for lazy people. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Although I believe that having a few 'group' packages for firmwares |
| 25 |
> will be 'acceptable'. Assuming those firmwares share a common license. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I very much agree with all of this. It would be nice if we could keep the |
| 28 |
individual firmware packages but just have them be a wrapper that depends on |
| 29 |
linux-firmware and ensures that the required files get installed (maybe by |
| 30 |
adding them to the savedconfig if it finds they aren't there). Yes, there are |
| 31 |
several problems with that idea, I know. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gcc-porting |
| 36 |
toolchain, wxwidgets learn a language baby, it's that kind of place |
| 37 |
@ gentoo.org where low card is hunger and high card is taste |
Archives