Bug#1034495: ITP: linux-board-support-package-dragonboard845c -- Firmware for dragonboard845c / RB3
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:47 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 21:36, Roger Shimizu <rosh@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Roger, FTP masters,
> > > Short story: the uploaded linux-board-support-package-dragonboard845c package (currently in NEW) contains a file with unclear license background and as such it should not be allowed into the archive.
> > > The orig.tar.gz file needs to be repackaged before uploading.
> >
> > I tried to repack the orig, and re-upload, but got REJECTED by:
> >
> > linux-board-support-package-dragonboard845c_0~20190529180356-v4-1.dsc:
> > Does not match file already existing in the pool.
>
> Usually one would use suffix like -dfsg to mark the repacked package.
> The -dfsg doesn't make sense in the case of a non-free package, so you
> can probably use -repack.
Yes, but upstream uses .zip archive anyhow.
So we have to repack to .orig.tar.*
> More importantly I'm not sure that this package should be a part of
> Debian at all.
Why?
Without bootloader part, we cannot support installer in Debian.
> I doubt that DI should touch these partitions. Firstly, because of the
> reasons I expressed in my previous email (risk of bricking the board,
> custom bootloaders being used on these devboards, etc).
> Secondly, I'd like to point out that RB3/RB5 (and other dragonboards)
> are in a pretty unique position. Other development boards (QRD, HDK,
> Open-Q, etc.) do not have public redistributable bootloader archives.
No worries about the brick issue.
We should consider this before releasing it to installer.
Currently, we just take the 1st step to get everything necessary to
hit the debian archive.
>
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry
Cheers,
Roger
Reply to: