Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> (2016-01-10): > [Cyril Brulebois] > > So the question becomes: should they be moved to git? Keeping the manual > > as a special snowflake leaving under d-i's svn is OK (mostly to avoid > > translators' having to learn about a new tool), but keeping debian-boot > > maintained packages under a different scm under a different group seems > > a bad idea. > > If someone got the time to do so, I believe that would be a good thing > to do. But my recommondation would be to switch to isenkram-cli with > appstream as the data souce and ask for the removal of discover. > > > I don't know a lot about appstream metadata, but I mentioned during > > the BoF we could just embed a fw file→fw package mapping at build time > > to ease lookup (basically what you're doing with apt-file, except we > > would have a static list in the d-i image; for one thing, there's no > > guarantee network is available at early stages to query Contents from > > mirrors). > > I've already implemented this idea in isenkram. The isenkram-cli > package contain an embedded copy of the list of packages with files in > /lib/firmware/, fetched from the apt-file data set. This is part of the > background for my recommondation to move to isenkram-cli for mapping > hardware to firmware and user space packages. Currently, there's no python in d-i, so isenkram is a no-go (as already mentioned a few months ago). > When the same information is available from appstream, I suspect we want > to include appstream data on the installation media, instead of > embedding it in isenkram-cli. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature