Re: Bug#676921: ITP: amd64-microcode -- Processor microcode firmware for AMD CPUs
On 06/12/2012 01:34 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> However, amd64-microcode has a different upstream
iirc so do the different firmware parts that src:firmware-nonfree builds.
> and it would already
> have to generate a separate binary package anyway for license reasons,
iirc so are the other binary packages that get build from
src:firmware-nonfree.
> so what is the point of adding it to firmware-nonfree?
it would be nice to have everything in one place (= one src package),
than to have things split over several, make the firmware stuff be
updated all at once, and better integrated (by using '^-firmware' prefix).
sure, most of them you could do without merging it on the source package
level, but why make things more complicated than they have to be.
> We could make firmware-nonfree "recommend intel-microcode |
> amd64-microcode" on [i386, amd64], though. That sounds like a good
> idea to help people install the microcode updates.
ack.
> After all, just about every new Intel and AMD processor has microcode
> patches issued, and both people and vendors are still as bad as they
> have always been at keeping their BIOS/EFI up-to-date...
yep.
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email: daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/
Reply to: