| 1 |
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:51:15 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Christopher Head posted on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:38:14 -0800 as |
| 5 |
> excerpted: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:43:02 +0100 Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> |
| 8 |
> > wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> |
| 11 |
> >> wrote: |
| 12 |
> >> >> +1 from me; I've had a few machines break on kernel upgrades |
| 13 |
> >> >> because I didn't have the proper firmware installed (I guess |
| 14 |
> >> >> older kernel sources came with the firmware?). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> >> > For starters, if kernel sources provide /lib/firmware, how do you |
| 17 |
> >> > deal with file collisions? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Please don't make kernel sources RDEPEND on firmware. The kernel |
| 20 |
> > DOES NOT depend on firmware to work properly. Well over half my |
| 21 |
> > machines prove that: they work perfectly fine (read: 100% of their |
| 22 |
> > hardware works) with no firmware at all installed. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Not a problem as long as the RDEPEND is under USE=firmware or similar. |
| 25 |
> No USE=firmware, no rdepend! =:^) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Kernel sources providing /lib/firmware itself shouldn't be a problem |
| 28 |
> either, as that's just a dir, which many packages may own. The |
| 29 |
> individual firmware files would be a problem, but the USE=firmware |
| 30 |
> RDEPEND solution should solve that. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Yes, of course, I meant please don’t depend unconditionally. A |
| 34 |
conditional depend is fine by me, and I don’t care about one random |
| 35 |
directory being created—I just don’t want a whole package being pulled |
| 36 |
in for nothing. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Chris |
Archives