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

firmware-nonfree: how many binary packages should we have?



Before there was a concerted campaign to separate firmware blobs out of
drivers in Linux, we generated a few firmware packages for specific
drivers and driver families: firmware-bnx2, firmware-bnx2x,
firmware-ipw2x00, firmware-iwlwifi, firmware-qlogic, firmware-ralink.

As part of that campaign we introduced firmware-linux-nonfree for
various small firmware blobs that we had previously included in our
kernel packages as part of a driver.  It has subsequently collected more
blobs used by newer versions of those drivers, and a few used by newer
drivers.

We've also added a few more specific packages since then; some
per-manufacturer and some per-driver or per-driver-family:
firmware-atheros, firmware-brcm80211, firmware-intelwimax,
firmware-ivtv, firmware-netxen, firmware-realtek.

We certainly need to keep some of the specific packages for size reasons
or to satisfy a click-wrap licensing requirement.

However, looking at these packages:

Name          Installed-Size  Click-wrap?

firmware-atheros         636  no
firmware-bnx2            600  no
firmware-bnx2x          1384  no
firmware-brcm80211       168  no
firmware-intelwimax     4084  no
firmware-ipw2x00        1244  yes
firmware-ivtv            892  yes
firmware-iwlwifi        5316  no
firmware-linux-nonfree  1164  no
firmware-netxen         1812  no
firmware-qlogic         1012  no
firmware-ralink          104  no
firmware-realtek         376  no

I think we're splitting smaller than we really need to.  If we merged
all the packages with installed-size < 1000 and no click-wrap into
firmware-linux-nonfree, we would have:

firmware-bnx2x          1384
firmware-intelwimax     4084
firmware-ipw2x00        1244
firmware-ivtv            892
firmware-iwlwifi        5316
firmware-linux-nonfree  2808
firmware-netxen         1812
firmware-qlogic         1012

However, this may make upgrades tricky.

Also, I think we have to stop listing files in the description of
firmware-linux-nonfree as the description is far too long already.  Can
we assume users will find this package (or firmware-linux) without an
'apt-cache search' on the file name?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

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


Reply to: