[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Improving firmware reporting



On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 21:43 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> (2016-05-22):
> > 
> > All the binary packages built from firmware-nonfree get it
> > automatically, but I forgot there were so many other firmware packages.
> > Maybe your way is better for now.
> ACK. Easy enough to toggle between both anyway. Maybe I should even
> keep both codepaths active and use them to detect inconsistencies
> between file list in Contents and Appstream metadata in Components…
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > >     amd64-microcode
> > >     atmel-firmware
> > >     bluez-firmware
> > >     dahdi-firmware-nonfree
> > >     firmware-crystalhd
> > >     firmware-ipw2x00
> > firmware-ipw2x00 does have it.
> Alright. I ran diff plus some pipes, without checking each and every
> package, which explains this kind of false positive.
> 
> It seems the following files are under lib/firmware but not listed in
> Appstream metadata:
>   lib/firmware/ipw2x00.LICENSE
>   lib/firmware/isci/isci_firmware.bin
> 
> Not sure about the former

It's a symlink to the licence text, presumably because Bastian read the
distributor licence as requiring we put it in the same directory as the
firmware.

> but I suppose the latter should be listed there?
[...]

The latter is in firmware-linux-free, which as I said doesn't generate
DEP-11 metadata.  I'll fix that in the next upload.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: