Re: Bug#676921: ITP: amd64-microcode -- Processor microcode firmware for AMD CPUs
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > 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).
Well, I am really not sure about the "update all at once", especially if you
take into account that stable updates are needed for processor microcode (we
didn't do it for Intel because Intel's public microcode release management
is a joke that is not even remotely funny. This _does not_ apply to AMD
microcode, which has proper changelogs).
But I don't care as long as nobody is going to get in the way of an
urgency=high upload of firmware-nonfree to stable-proposed-updates or
stable-updates. If this sort of upload is not a good idea for
firmware-nonfree, then the processor microcodes would be better off in a
separate package.
> > 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.
Well, the amd64-microcode has not cleared NEW yet. How should we proceed?
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: