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

Re: Debian hardware certification

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:17:09 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 12:48:17PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > > That's the kind of very simple list that I was hoping to build. But the
> > > > list isn't the final goal. The goal is to *fix* issues when we see them,
> > > > like it happened for the X8STi-F in Debian 5.04.
> > > 
> > > In that case, are you sure that bugs.debian.org isn't what you are
> > > looking for?
> > 
> > That seems like a good idea -- how about if we encouraged willing hardware
> > manufacturers to maintain a pseudo package type thing, perhaps per
> > device, although it would be good to have some sort of wild-card so that
> > one could report a bug against hw-supermicro-mb-X8STi-F, and they could
> > resign it to hw-supermicro-nic-e1000 or some such, without us needing
> > to do more than let them tell us the contact email for their BTS or the
> > person in charge of fixing that device, say.
> It seems to be a bit unrealistic to assume that we're going to convince
> most hardware manufacturers out there to have maintainers of their own
> pseudo package in the Debian BTS. I'd say that it's a nice possibility
> to offer, but we should not base hardware support verifications only to
> that. At best, we should have both a community driven process like those
> mentioned earlier on in this thread and the possibility for hardware
> people to jump in and provide direct support. But I don't expect the
> latter part to be any significant share of the whole thingie.

Certainly, I wasn't expecting a significant percentage of the world's
manufacturers to do this, but when someone comes to the lists saying
that they have a contact with a particular manufacturer that wants to
know how they can mention that they support Debian properly, this
approach would allow us to tell them the thing that they have to do to
make that so, and it would then provide our users with a channel to
communicate problems to the manufacturer.

On the other hand, if we're talking about exactly one manufacturer ever
taking advantage of this, then it's bound to end up just being more
clutter, and the forwarded email will probably be bouncing in six
months, in which case they should be pointed at one or more of the other
sites already mentioned, as you say.

If it were possible to do the catch-all dummy package thing for the
general case of manufacturers who don't know we exist, just to track the
problems people have with their hardware, then that might allow a useful
resource to be assembled by our users -- but I don't think it's worth it
if it would take significant effort to achieve (unless we get to use the
catch-all feature for other things as well -- and of course only if
someone fancies implementing it).

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND

Attachment: pgpX5HA4qvG8E.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: