On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:56:37AM -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
(Just filling in details of my thoughts here, not arguing for or against however you guys decide to name things.) On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:12:11AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 17:48 -0500, D. Jared Dominguez wrote: > Okay, well, I talked to Peter on IRC. He pointed out that: > - While there may be other platforms with firmware update mechanisms > that work in Linux, they're fringe. There's already flashrom, which is also generically named but does support a wider variety of older flash firmware. ethtool can update firmware for some network cards. Many vendors provide specific tools to update firmware on Linux. > - It's in Fedora as fwupdate already, so having a different name is > confusing.(I don't think I said this, and it isn't - fwupd is, which is a gnome tool that will optionally use fwupdate.)
Oh, indeed. Okay, I was looking at https://pjones.fedorapeople.org/fwupdate/ and didn't check Fedora proper. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, Peter.
For me, the only compelling reason not to use the name "fwupdate" for the Debian package is the existence of Oracle's fwupdate, but honestly, it's proprietary and hardly likely to ever be included in Debian. If Oracle's were to be included in Debian, I think it should be as oracle-fwupdate regardless of what Peter's fwupdate is called. :)
Anyway, given Peter's intentions for fwupdate, I don't think (u)efi-fwupdate is an appropriate name. I'm sticking to fwupdate unless Peter changes the name. I don't want to make the package harder to find by using a different name from upstream, and I haven't seen a better name given.
--Jared -- Jared Domínguez Infrastructure Software Engineering Dell | Enterprise Solutions Group