Re: First packaging attempt : atmel-firmware

[Pekka Pietikainen <pp ee oulu fi>]

On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 09:42:39PM +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 December 2004 21:12, ee21rh wrote:
> > Comments?
> 
> Now we need a kernel-module-at76c503a-2.6.9 package that deps on this 
> one.  Know any floating around? I've got a at76c503a-based Corega USB 
> wireless that I can run tests on including firmware upload via hotplug, 
> etc.
Oh, which reminds me. If someone does a package like that and the firmware
has redistribution problems I think it's almost best if there are no
dependancies between the packages. Well, it's really a balance between

1) User is told to add repo X and "yum install kernel-module-foo" which
doesn't work since he's missing a dependancy, then has to grab a .nosrc.rpm
(or spec file), build a rpm, install it and try again. He's probably given
up already after step #1

2) User gets driver installed but it doesn't work and he has no idea that a
firmware file is needed as well. Since he doesn't watch his dmesg/syslog he
never finds out either. If he does, he can grab the firmware straight from
the net or in .src.rpm/.nosrc.rpm or .noarch.rpm form.

There's already quite a few in-kernel drivers that need a firmware file to
work and the kernel doesn't have dependancies for those, so #2 would fit 
that policy (or lack of one :-) )

Or maybe we just need a fedora-firmwares.org/fedora-binary-only-blobs.org yum
repo located in a suitable country ;)

Then there's the userland stuff requiring kernel-module-xxx stuff (nvidia ;) )
which I've also found to cause some annoyances. I just nuke the dependancy
in my own builds of the thing :-) 

-- 
Pekka Pietikainen