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

Re: Improving firmware reporting

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:

Not sure about the former but I suppose the latter should be listed

> >     firmware-linux-free
> >     firmware-zd1211
> >     intel-microcode
> >     ixp4xx-microcode
> >     prism2-usb-firmware-installer
> > 
> > (firmware-linux-free might be special because in main; not sure.)
> That means it's built from a separate source package which I haven't
> yet added DEP-11 generation to.  But it's also recommended by linux-
> image-* so gets installed by default anyway.

Well, as far as I can tell from a debian-installer build, this package
isn't used at build-time. That it gets installed by default is one
thing; but as I mentioned in my initial reply, we might need to load
firmware(s) within the installer context, sometimes before having
network set up, or the /target filesystem, etc.

(I have no idea whether that is relevant for any of the firmwares
included in this particular package.)

Also: Thanks for your feedback.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: