-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/11/2013 04:03 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 11/02/13 05:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> I, as another user, prefer not to have a whole bunch of firmware
>> installed if I only want one or two of them.
> +1. Also licences. It's a mess. Not suggest
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/10/2013 11:27 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> I, as a user, prefer not to have to hunt for firmware for devices
>> supported vy the kernel. I would either install all of them or
>> filter out the firmwares for devices I am unlikel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/02/13 05:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I, as another user, prefer not to have a whole bunch of firmware
> installed if I only want one or two of them.
+1. Also licences. It's a mess. Not suggesting that *I* have the
magic-unicorn-land-perfect solut
J. Roeleveld wrote:
> I, as a user, prefer not to have to hunt for firmware for devices
> supported vy the kernel. I would either install all of them or
> filter out the firmwares for devices I am unlikely to get.
I, as another user, prefer not to have a whole bunch of firmware
installed if I only
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Any objections if I slap a generic package.mask on every firmware package
> installing to wrong directory?
> Half of them install to /$(get_libdir)/firmware as opposed to correct
> /lib/firmware.
> Most of them are maintainer-needed@ and ve
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
> I don't think that solves the license problem properly. Say, if user
> doesn't want non-free software, he's going to have the whole package
> masked. He'd have to work-around license + savedconfig.
> Now that I look at it, it seems that the ebuild d
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 11:09:15 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 09/02/13 11:06, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> >
> >> 2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> >>> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
> >>> newest firmware _is_ there,
Samuli Suominen wrote:
>On 09/02/13 11:11, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>>>
2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if
>the
> newest firmware _is_ there, just ge
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> I disagree. Why should we force users to install lots of crap (some
>> of it being non-free) that they will never need because they don't
>> have the hardware?
> Maybe you don't understand how linux-firmware package works. It only
> installs wh
On 09/02/13 11:11, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
That should be probably the b
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>
>> 2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
>>> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
>>> newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
>>>
>> That should be probably the best approach, to act
On 09/02/13 11:06, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
That should be probably the best approach, to actual
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
>> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
>> newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
>>
> That should be probably the best approach, to actually kill of the
> lone ones a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/02/13 01:14 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> 2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
>> On 08/02/2013 18:53, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and unmask?
>>
>> I would say that we might want to review linux-firm
El vie, 08-02-2013 a las 19:01 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió:
> On 08/02/2013 18:53, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >
> > Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and unmask?
>
> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
> newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid
2013/2/8 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> On 08/02/2013 18:53, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>
>> Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and unmask?
>
> I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
> newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
>
That should be probab
On 08/02/2013 18:53, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and unmask?
I would say that we might want to review linux-firmware, and if the
newest firmware _is_ there, just get rid of the split one.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu —
Any objections if I slap a generic package.mask on every firmware
package installing to wrong directory?
Half of them install to /$(get_libdir)/firmware as opposed to correct
/lib/firmware.
Most of them are maintainer-needed@ and very old.
Then intrested parties get to fix what they want and un
18 matches
Mail list logo
