[Bug 491090] Review Request: kernel-firmware - firmware files for use with Linux kernel

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491090





--- Comment #4 from David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org>  2009-04-06 22:42:43 EDT ---
Thanks for the detailed analysis.

1. Well spotted; thanks. Will fix that upstream.

2. We're thinking about changing to a more machine-readable form for the WHENCE
file, in which case perhaps we could automatically strip those out. It's
harmless enough though.

3. I'll fix the ess one; the usb8388 isn't actually a duplicate AFAIK (it's for
the OLPC device supporting mesh, vs. the mass market ones).

4. Spitting into subpackages might make some sense, especially if we can
automatically install those packages on demand.

5. The latest one should _always_ be applicable. If firmware ABI changes, the
filename must also change (like an soname changes), and the linux-firmware
package would then carry _both_ versions. Which takes us to...

6. The upstream repository will continue to carry the old-ABI versions of
firmware, and our 'latest' firmware package can continue to include those for
as long as we desire.

7. To avoid unpleasant surprises, I've started off with the firmware package
not being optional -- and was imagining that those who want _only_ Free
Software on their machines would have an alternative package which Provides:
kernel-firmware. I'm certainly happy to entertain ideas on how this should turn
out in the end, but we do need to make sure that it 'just works' for most
people.

8. I think subpackages are probably a good idea, in the end. To start with
perhaps we should keep it simple and just provide everything though. Or maybe
have just two: 'kernel-firmware-core' and 'kernel-firmware-extra', with the
former containing just the firmwares which _used_ to be in the kernel itself
(again, to reduce surprises).

9. I agree that we should probably install firmware for core devices (scsi/net)
by default, and let non-essential firmware get installed on demand. Which means
subpackages.

How well does presto actually work? Can we start doing this today?

With regard to redistribution status -- everything we've _added_ to the
linux-firmware repository has clear permission from an authoritative source.
The only ones we can be dubious about are the ones which were previously in the
kernel in binary form, which was already a licensing problem... but we were
shipping them anyway. I can't see how shipping them in a form such that the GPL
_doesn't_ apply to them would make us any _less_ happy to ship them.

Will update the package and fix the details you mentioned.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.