Am 31.03.2017 um 15:26 schrieb Ben Hutchings: > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 08:15 +0300, Paul Fertser wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:04:24PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:22 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: >>>> Source: linux >>>> Version: 4.10~rc6-1~exp1 >>>> Severity: wishlist >>>> X-Debbugs-CC: open-ath9k-htc-firmware@packages.debian.org >>>> >>>> Now that open-ath9k-htc-firmware has been accepted into Debian >>>> unstable, please add "Recommends: firmware-ath9k-htc" to the >>>> metadata for the linux-image-* packages in Debian experimental. >> >> Not many linux-image-* users have ath9k-htc hardware so I do not see >> how this recommendation can make sense here. > > This is also true for most of the devices supported by firmware-linux- > free, but it's small so it shouldn't hurt. > >> The package should have provided appropriate AppStream metainformation >> so Debian should be able to suggest installing it when the device is >> plugged in for the first time. > > Unfortunately I don't think we have all the infrastructure in place for > that yet. > >>> As this firmware has gone through at least one ABI bump, I think we >>> need to plan for a future ABI bump. >> >> So far the idea was to upload a package named firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 >> after the next ABI bump. There's no reason why >> firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 shouldn't be able to co-exist on the same >> system with e.g. firmware-ath9k-htc-1.6.0, as the user should be able >> to choose different kernel versions on boot, and hence different >> firmware versions will be appropriate. >> >>> Therefore: >>> - You should not name the files as simply '1.dev.0' versions, but by >>> the implemented ABI version (as the driver expects by default). >> >> The code that's currently packaged is definitely not 1.4.0 code, it >> got some non-trivial changes (not affecting ABI though) after the >> 1.4.0 was released. So naming an intermediate version in any way other >> than 1.dev.0 would only add to the confusion IMHO. > > So install your files with the real version number and make a symlink > with the '1.4.0' name. I don't think it makes any sense. Why should we symlink some thing different/not_stable to file name of stable firmware? Especially if we have 1.dev.0? firmware-ath9k-htc package should and can provide any latest possible version of firmware form git. All possible distribution patches are welcome as well. firmware-ath9k-htc-v1.5 should provide stable version without any chanes. This is needed to make sure suers are able to fall back to working version of firmware even if firmware-ath9k-htc will brake connection. -- Regards, Oleksij
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature