| 1 |
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 2 |
<zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> Kernel sources providing /lib/firmware itself shouldn't be a problem |
| 4 |
>>> either, as that's just a dir, which many packages may own. The |
| 5 |
>>> individual firmware files would be a problem, but the USE=firmware |
| 6 |
>>> RDEPEND solution should solve that. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> What is everyone's opinion of adding a USE=firmware option to pull in |
| 9 |
> PDEPEND="linux-firmware" in linux-2.eclass? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Not exactly an opinion, but a couple of notes: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
1. Kernel's "make modules_install" triggers "make firmware_install", |
| 14 |
which installs a strict subset of linux-firmware (for enabled modules |
| 15 |
— e.g., "3com/typhoon.bin"). A way to work around that is to supply |
| 16 |
INSTALL_FW_PATH=... to make. |
| 17 |
2. CONFIG_PREVENT_FIRMWARE_BUILD=y does not prevent installing |
| 18 |
firmware by "make modules_install". |
| 19 |
3. Trough all this firmware discussion, everyone is acting as if it's |
| 20 |
obvious that linux-firmware was always preferred to individual |
| 21 |
packages. This is not the case — some Gentoo developers didn't even |
| 22 |
know about linux-firmware when creating individual packages, as is |
| 23 |
evident from messages in discussion. I tried to figure which to use |
| 24 |
some time ago, and came to conclusion that more often than not, |
| 25 |
individual packages are preferable, because they are versioned/slotted |
| 26 |
and go through a proper stabilization process (e.g., iwlwifi). Perhaps |
| 27 |
that conclusion was incorrect, but the point is that information on |
| 28 |
the subject was scarce, to say the least. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Maxim Kammerer |
| 32 |
Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte |
Archives