1 |
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:09:22 +0200 |
2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 17/02/13 12:05, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > savedconfig is a cheap hack. It lacks all the features USE flags have. |
6 |
> > Really. We're talking here about replacing well-organized packages with |
7 |
> > one cheap hack for the laziness of a few developers. But that's how |
8 |
> > Gentoo worked for a long time. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> This is how you would justify adding separate ebuild for every firmware |
11 |
> from the linux-firmware bundle? |
12 |
|
13 |
I would justify it through keeping things split and bit-exact clean, |
14 |
instead of tightly integrated. |
15 |
|
16 |
Separate ebuilds mean that: |
17 |
|
18 |
- each firmware has proper license, |
19 |
|
20 |
- each firmware can be installed separately and it is _clean_ which |
21 |
firmwares are actually installed (think of binpkgs), |
22 |
|
23 |
- each firmware can be upgraded when it needs to be (alternatively: all |
24 |
firmwares are re-installed over and over again when new firmware is |
25 |
added). |
26 |
|
27 |
And I wouldn't mind having even 200 sys-firmware/ packages. And don't |
28 |
tell me that firmwares change every month, these are particularly |
29 |
maintenance-free packages. |
30 |
|
31 |
And I don't mind having meta-packages for lazy people. |
32 |
|
33 |
Although I believe that having a few 'group' packages for firmwares |
34 |
will be 'acceptable'. Assuming those firmwares share a common license. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Best regards, |
38 |
Michał Górny |