Bug#1101838: ITP: hexagon-dsp-binaries - Qualcomm Hexagon DSP binaries
On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 04:13:20AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 14:53, Robie Basak <robie.basak@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 07:57:17PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > That's a good point. If fastrpc is split into three daemon packages,
> > > then each daemon package should 'Suggests: hexagon-dsp-binaries-Ndsp',
> > > where 'N' is one of 'a', 'c', 'g' or 's', for each kind of DSPs.
> > >
> > > WDYT? I can implement that straight away.
> >
> > I have quite a bit to say on this, but to make progress, let's get
> > hexagon-dsp-binaries package uploaded first. We don't need the virtual
> > packages until something is going into Debian that depends on them. This
> > will probably be fastrpc, and I have an ITP filed for that now, but I'm
> > not yet ready for a Debian upload.
>
> The 'hexagonrpcd' package is already a part of Debian.
It doesn't depend on hexagon-dsp-binaries at the moment though, and
won't be able to until it moves to unstable. So I don't think we need to
resolve this yet. I don't think the structure of hexagon-dsp-binaries
binary packages will change. I don't think there's any harm or wasted
effort in uploading to experimental now to make some progress on this,
if that's OK with you?
> Is the following PR enough from your POV? If it looks good, I will merge it.
>
> https://github.com/linux-msm/hexagon-dsp-binaries/pull/18
FTR, I acked the PR directly and Dmitry merged it.
> > What I'd like is for the Debian ftpmasters to find, when they review,
> > that all is in order with everything being stated in debian/copyright
> > precisely and unambiguously matching what is claimed by upstream in the
> > source tree itself (preferably verifiable using the licensecheck tool).
Are you planning to use a new upstream release to pick up explicit
licensing of WHENCE before we upload hexagon-dsp-binaries to
experimental? This would avoid a possible review iteration for Debian
ftpmaster review I think.
I missed some source and/or pedantic lintian tags on previous reviews.
This was my fault, so in an effort to minimise pain for you I've
provided fixes for all of them at
https://salsa.debian.org/rbasak/hexagon-dsp-binaries/-/commits/initial-fixes,
together with one README.Debian catch-up from review changes. Please
take a look and check if you are happy with them.
If you are happy to integrate those changes then I think the packaging
is ready for experimental now, with just your thoughts on a new upstream
release first as above.
Robie
Reply to: