Ben Hutchings wrote on Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 04:39:23PM +0200:
> On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 09:39 +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > the udeb regdb is also slightly obsolete, I'm not sure why it was needed
> > in the first place but it might be possible to use the normal package
> > instead?
>
> Why do you think it's obsolete? It is useful to have this file present
> in the installer.
Sorry this wasn't clear. I didn't mean obsolete as no longer useful,
just that it is old: wireless-regdb-udeb hasn't been updated in two
years, while the main wireless-regdb package keeps getting updates
regularly.
That means it's possible a firmware that requires the updated version
to work for new band regulations will not have access to these bands
for IR.
Note that for clients (installer usecase), it _also_ doesn't matter: if
an AP uses regulated bands, the client will (should?) rightfully use
these. Regulations mean a wireless emetter cannot start broadcasting on
regulated bands unless they know it's safe, but if an access point or
other clients use the band they can tell it's OK and will allow it.
The regdb will thus only matter for people setting up hotspots or AP on
their system, or perhaps if the remote AP is also missing its regdb but
I'm not sure how the ssid would come up then.
(At least, the marvell/NXP chip I've tested this with does that
properly; there can be other aspects to regdb I'm not aware of or didn't
understand)
In that sense, removing the firmware from installer also should not make
a difference to most users, but I'm not suggesting to remove it in this
bug as I'm sure there was a reason for it to be added in the first place.
I'd just like post-install systems which install the package to get the
new version :)
> > That won't fix existing systems though.
> > If wireless-regdb had been owning the files in dpkg it would be fair
> > game to just overwrite the files (dpkg overwrites any untracked file
> > when installing a package that provides the path).
> >
> > Would it make sense to include regulatory.db -> regulatory.db-debian
> > (+same for p7s) links in the package itself, so package installation
> > overwrites these and the post update-alternative step fixes it?
> > It seems to fix "broken" links without force in this case.
> > (or push real links to /etc/alternatives/regulatory.db would work too)
>
> I don't think it's right to include symlinks in the package that are
> supposed to be managed by update-alternatives. I would rather fix this
> up in the postinst script.
Yeah, it probably makes more sense to just remove whatever was there in
the post-install script.
I'll leave the resolution to you unless you want/need help with
something.
--
Dominique
