Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 19:40 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > Am 31.03.2017 um 19:17 schrieb Ben Hutchings: > > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 18:52 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > [..] > > > I don't think it makes any sense. Why should we symlink some thing > > > different/not_stable to file name of stable firmware? > > > Especially if we have 1.dev.0? > > > firmware-ath9k-htc package should and can provide any latest possible > > > version of firmware form git. All possible distribution patches are > > > welcome as well. > > > firmware-ath9k-htc-v1.5 should provide stable version without any > > > chanes. This is needed to make sure suers are able to fall back to > > > working version of firmware even if firmware-ath9k-htc will brake > > > connection. > > > > If this package is not going to provide a stable ABI then I'll consider > > adding a Breaks instead. > > I'm not sure what you mean. Firmware filenames are supposed to indicate ABI versions. Just like shared library sonames. Just like kernel module directory names. You've told me that you're not going to do this. So it sounds like the kernel will need to have something like 'Breaks: firmware-ath9k-htc (>= 1.5~)'. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
Am 31.03.2017 um 19:17 schrieb Ben Hutchings: > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 18:52 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > [..] >> I don't think it makes any sense. Why should we symlink some thing >> different/not_stable to file name of stable firmware? >> Especially if we have 1.dev.0? >> firmware-ath9k-htc package should and can provide any latest possible >> version of firmware form git. All possible distribution patches are >> welcome as well. >> firmware-ath9k-htc-v1.5 should provide stable version without any >> chanes. This is needed to make sure suers are able to fall back to >> working version of firmware even if firmware-ath9k-htc will brake >> connection. > > If this package is not going to provide a stable ABI then I'll consider > adding a Breaks instead. I'm not sure what you mean. -- Regards, Oleksij signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 18:52 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: [..] > I don't think it makes any sense. Why should we symlink some thing > different/not_stable to file name of stable firmware? > Especially if we have 1.dev.0? > firmware-ath9k-htc package should and can provide any latest possible > version of firmware form git. All possible distribution patches are > welcome as well. > firmware-ath9k-htc-v1.5 should provide stable version without any > chanes. This is needed to make sure suers are able to fall back to > working version of firmware even if firmware-ath9k-htc will brake > connection. If this package is not going to provide a stable ABI then I'll consider adding a Breaks instead. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
Am 31.03.2017 um 15:26 schrieb Ben Hutchings: > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 08:15 +0300, Paul Fertser wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:04:24PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:22 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: Source: linux Version: 4.10~rc6-1~exp1 Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: open-ath9k-htc-firmw...@packages.debian.org Now that open-ath9k-htc-firmware has been accepted into Debian unstable, please add "Recommends: firmware-ath9k-htc" to the metadata for the linux-image-* packages in Debian experimental. >> >> Not many linux-image-* users have ath9k-htc hardware so I do not see >> how this recommendation can make sense here. > > This is also true for most of the devices supported by firmware-linux- > free, but it's small so it shouldn't hurt. > >> The package should have provided appropriate AppStream metainformation >> so Debian should be able to suggest installing it when the device is >> plugged in for the first time. > > Unfortunately I don't think we have all the infrastructure in place for > that yet. > >>> As this firmware has gone through at least one ABI bump, I think we >>> need to plan for a future ABI bump. >> >> So far the idea was to upload a package named firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 >> after the next ABI bump. There's no reason why >> firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 shouldn't be able to co-exist on the same >> system with e.g. firmware-ath9k-htc-1.6.0, as the user should be able >> to choose different kernel versions on boot, and hence different >> firmware versions will be appropriate. >> >>> Therefore: >>> - You should not name the files as simply '1.dev.0' versions, but by >>> the implemented ABI version (as the driver expects by default). >> >> The code that's currently packaged is definitely not 1.4.0 code, it >> got some non-trivial changes (not affecting ABI though) after the >> 1.4.0 was released. So naming an intermediate version in any way other >> than 1.dev.0 would only add to the confusion IMHO. > > So install your files with the real version number and make a symlink > with the '1.4.0' name. I don't think it makes any sense. Why should we symlink some thing different/not_stable to file name of stable firmware? Especially if we have 1.dev.0? firmware-ath9k-htc package should and can provide any latest possible version of firmware form git. All possible distribution patches are welcome as well. firmware-ath9k-htc-v1.5 should provide stable version without any chanes. This is needed to make sure suers are able to fall back to working version of firmware even if firmware-ath9k-htc will brake connection. -- Regards, Oleksij signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 08:15 +0300, Paul Fertser wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:04:24PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:22 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > > Source: linux > > > Version: 4.10~rc6-1~exp1 > > > Severity: wishlist > > > X-Debbugs-CC: open-ath9k-htc-firmw...@packages.debian.org > > > > > > Now that open-ath9k-htc-firmware has been accepted into Debian > > > unstable, please add "Recommends: firmware-ath9k-htc" to the > > > metadata for the linux-image-* packages in Debian experimental. > > Not many linux-image-* users have ath9k-htc hardware so I do not see > how this recommendation can make sense here. This is also true for most of the devices supported by firmware-linux- free, but it's small so it shouldn't hurt. > The package should have provided appropriate AppStream metainformation > so Debian should be able to suggest installing it when the device is > plugged in for the first time. Unfortunately I don't think we have all the infrastructure in place for that yet. > > As this firmware has gone through at least one ABI bump, I think we > > need to plan for a future ABI bump. > > So far the idea was to upload a package named firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 > after the next ABI bump. There's no reason why > firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 shouldn't be able to co-exist on the same > system with e.g. firmware-ath9k-htc-1.6.0, as the user should be able > to choose different kernel versions on boot, and hence different > firmware versions will be appropriate. > > > Therefore: > > - You should not name the files as simply '1.dev.0' versions, but by > > the implemented ABI version (as the driver expects by default). > > The code that's currently packaged is definitely not 1.4.0 code, it > got some non-trivial changes (not affecting ABI though) after the > 1.4.0 was released. So naming an intermediate version in any way other > than 1.dev.0 would only add to the confusion IMHO. So install your files with the real version number and make a symlink with the '1.4.0' name. Ben. > Probably it would make sense to have the minor number indicate a > subversion of same-ABI firmwares, but for some reasons the kernel > driver maintainers decided against that. > > I hope Oleksij will correct me if I'm missing something here. > -- Ben Hutchings To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
Hi, Am 31.03.2017 um 07:15 schrieb Paul Fertser: On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:04:24PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:22 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: Source: linux Version: 4.10~rc6-1~exp1 Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: open-ath9k-htc-firmw...@packages.debian.org Now that open-ath9k-htc-firmware has been accepted into Debian unstable, please add "Recommends: firmware-ath9k-htc" to the metadata for the linux-image-* packages in Debian experimental. Not many linux-image-* users have ath9k-htc hardware so I do not see how this recommendation can make sense here. The package should have provided appropriate AppStream metainformation so Debian should be able to suggest installing it when the device is plugged in for the first time. As this firmware has gone through at least one ABI bump, I think we need to plan for a future ABI bump. So far the idea was to upload a package named firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 after the next ABI bump. There's no reason why firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 shouldn't be able to co-exist on the same system with e.g. firmware-ath9k-htc-1.6.0, as the user should be able to choose different kernel versions on boot, and hence different firmware versions will be appropriate. Therefore: - You should not name the files as simply '1.dev.0' versions, but by the implemented ABI version (as the driver expects by default). The code that's currently packaged is definitely not 1.4.0 code, it got some non-trivial changes (not affecting ABI though) after the 1.4.0 was released. So naming an intermediate version in any way other than 1.dev.0 would only add to the confusion IMHO. Probably it would make sense to have the minor number indicate a subversion of same-ABI firmwares, but for some reasons the kernel driver maintainers decided against that. I hope Oleksij will correct me if I'm missing something here. no. nothing is missing. thank you -- Regards, Oleksij
Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:04:24PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:22 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > Source: linux > > Version: 4.10~rc6-1~exp1 > > Severity: wishlist > > X-Debbugs-CC: open-ath9k-htc-firmw...@packages.debian.org > > > > Now that open-ath9k-htc-firmware has been accepted into Debian > > unstable, please add "Recommends: firmware-ath9k-htc" to the > > metadata for the linux-image-* packages in Debian experimental. Not many linux-image-* users have ath9k-htc hardware so I do not see how this recommendation can make sense here. The package should have provided appropriate AppStream metainformation so Debian should be able to suggest installing it when the device is plugged in for the first time. > As this firmware has gone through at least one ABI bump, I think we > need to plan for a future ABI bump. So far the idea was to upload a package named firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 after the next ABI bump. There's no reason why firmware-ath9k-htc-1.5.0 shouldn't be able to co-exist on the same system with e.g. firmware-ath9k-htc-1.6.0, as the user should be able to choose different kernel versions on boot, and hence different firmware versions will be appropriate. > Therefore: > - You should not name the files as simply '1.dev.0' versions, but by > the implemented ABI version (as the driver expects by default). The code that's currently packaged is definitely not 1.4.0 code, it got some non-trivial changes (not affecting ABI though) after the 1.4.0 was released. So naming an intermediate version in any way other than 1.dev.0 would only add to the confusion IMHO. Probably it would make sense to have the minor number indicate a subversion of same-ABI firmwares, but for some reasons the kernel driver maintainers decided against that. I hope Oleksij will correct me if I'm missing something here. -- Be free, use free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) software! mailto:fercer...@gmail.com
Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
Control: tag -1 moreinfo On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 09:22 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Source: linux > Version: 4.10~rc6-1~exp1 > Severity: wishlist > X-Debbugs-CC: open-ath9k-htc-firmw...@packages.debian.org > > Now that open-ath9k-htc-firmware has been accepted into Debian > unstable, please add "Recommends: firmware-ath9k-htc" to the > metadata for the linux-image-* packages in Debian experimental. As this firmware has gone through at least one ABI bump, I think we need to plan for a future ABI bump. Therefore: - You should not name the files as simply '1.dev.0' versions, but by the implemented ABI version (as the driver expects by default). - The recommends relation should only match packages that provide a compatible firmware version. I think that means it should be firmware-ath9k-htc (<< 1.5) currently. Do you agree? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
Source: linux Version: 4.10~rc6-1~exp1 Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: open-ath9k-htc-firmw...@packages.debian.org Now that open-ath9k-htc-firmware has been accepted into Debian unstable, please add "Recommends: firmware-ath9k-htc" to the metadata for the linux-image-* packages in Debian experimental. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
