| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:39 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Fri, 07 Feb 2020, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 9:10 AM Mike Pagano <mpagano@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> # Mike Pagano <mpagano@g.o> (2020-02-07) |
| 8 |
> >> # The standalone ebuild for this driver is made |
| 9 |
> >> # unnecessary as it is included in the package: |
| 10 |
> >> # sys-kernel/linux-firmware |
| 11 |
> >> sys-firmware/iwl6050-ucode |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > How about all the others as well? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > sys-firmware/iwl1000-ucode |
| 16 |
> > sys-firmware/iwl3160-7260-bt-ucode |
| 17 |
> > sys-firmware/iwl3160-ucode |
| 18 |
> > sys-firmware/iwl6005-ucode |
| 19 |
> > sys-firmware/iwl6030-ucode |
| 20 |
> > sys-firmware/iwl7260-ucode |
| 21 |
> > sys-firmware/iwl8000-ucode |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I had asked the same question back in November, but an argument against |
| 24 |
> it was that sys-kernel/linux-firmware is quite a monster. In the default |
| 25 |
> configuration, its installation footprint is 515 MiB. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> But yeah, either we should keep them all or remove them all. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It looks like several different people maintain the individual |
| 30 |
iwlXXXX-ucode packages. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Removing them all would require some consensus among those maintainers. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Keeping them all means forcing maintainers to work on stuff they don't |
| 35 |
care about, or will result in stuff getting dropped to |
| 36 |
maintainer-needed. |
Archives