control: severity -1 normal On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:42 AM, karl156 <karl...@abwesend.de> wrote:
> Package: raspi3-firmware > Version: 1.20161123-2 > Severity: important > Tags: sid > > Thanks for packaging the raspi firmware. > > As this package basically only contains the blobs which are working on > all Raspberry Pis (1-3), wouldn't it be more appropriate to name this > package "raspi-firmware"? (And make it available on armhf too.) > The reason why this package is targeted at the Raspberry Pi 3 and above is that only the Raspberry Pi 3 in ARM64 mode is supported by kernels which are included in Debian. All other Raspberry Pi models require custom kernels from the Raspberry Pi foundation ( https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/). > > > Also config.txt & cmdline.txt should be treated as conffiles so that > changes the user has made (e.g. special hdmi parameters or codec > licenses) won't get overridden on every kernel update. > I was thinking we could implement something similar to how Raspbian et al. manage their configs, i.e. using a config-available/config-enabled like system where users don’t need to modify conffiles directly at all. What do you think about that suggestion? > > I would suggest to place them somewhere in /etc instead of > auto-generating them in the kernel postinst script and just copy them to > the firmware folder in the kernel postinst script. > If you copy the kernel, initramfs + dtb to fixed positions (like the > "/vmlinuz" & "/initrd.img" symlinks) in the kernel postinst script then > config.txt & cmdline.txt don't need to be touched on every update. > Another idea would be to only write them if they don't exist yet. > > I've put these two issues together because without a customizable > config.txt the package indeed only works on a raspi3 because of the > "arm_control=0x200" & "device_tree=bcm2837-rpi-3-b.dtb" lines. > > Severity set to important, cause all user changes to the config files > are lost on every update, rendering this package useless for many users. > I’m downgrading this to normal. You are correct in that the experience is not ideal for some users, but at the same time, there are other gaping holes to fix in Raspberry Pi support in Debian, see https://wiki.debian.org/RaspberryPi3 (help very welcome!). These gaps make me believe the raspi3-firmware package doesn’t have any serious users yet, so I’d prefer to take some time to think about the best way to manage these configuration files. -- Best regards, Michael
