On 16 February 2013 19:31, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> > So because we did things badly in the past, that is an excuse to
>> > do things badly in the future? :)
>>
>> No. I still argue that this is NOT doing things badly.
>> Masking a package will NOT cause it to get unmerged
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > So because we did things badly in the past, that is an excuse to
> > do things badly in the future? :)
>
> No. I still argue that this is NOT doing things badly.
> Masking a package will NOT cause it to get unmerged by default.
Hm, can you expand on "by default" ?
W
On 16/02/2013 20:18, Alec Warner wrote:
> So because we did things badly in the past, that is an excuse to do
> things badly in the future? :)
No. I still argue that this is NOT doing things badly.
Masking a package will NOT cause it to get unmerged by default.
The whole line of thought that Rick
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 16/02/2013 07:08, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> What happens why a user runs --depclean and has a masked package
>> installed? Oh that's right, it uninstalls. My systems do that
>> automatically, but you are welcome to assume "s
On 16/02/2013 07:08, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> What happens why a user runs --depclean and has a masked package
> installed? Oh that's right, it uninstalls. My systems do that
> automatically, but you are welcome to assume "stupid user didn't read
> messages" if that is easier.
That's not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/14/2013 05:39 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 15/02/13 00:27, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> Remove firmware from users systems with no upgrade path and then ask
>> users to file a bug? That's pretty awesome, how can those people file a
>
>
On 15/02/13 00:27, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
Remove firmware from users systems with no upgrade path and then ask
users to file a bug? That's pretty awesome, how can those people file a
You have very broken definition of removing/breaking users systems.
Masking is not breaking. The messa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/13/2013 08:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
>> Having 300 -firmware packages is silly.
>
> I can't help but noticing that some of the recently introduced iwlwifi
> firmware packages came from Chromiu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/13/2013 08:08 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
>> atmel-firmware ipw2100-firmware ipw2200-firmware b43-firmware
>> b43legacy-firmware rtl8192su-firmware zd1201-firmware
>> zd1211-firmware
>>
>> None of t
On 14/02/13 09:26, Michael Weber wrote:
non-multilib/x86 installs to /lib, multilib is linked to /lib.
So please, stop using dramatizing this and use it as alibi for your
otherwise justified plans.
There is no guarantee multilib is linked to /lib whatsoever. Where did
you get that idea?
U folks are aware of the fact that installed sources is rather vaguely
coupled with running kernel, right?
No, I'm not running archkernel on gentoo, but it would be possible.
It's also fine to poke around in linus' sources and cross compile w/o
ever running the damn thing or needing firmware from
Peter Stuge writes:
> Kernel -sources USE is a handy way to install linux-firmware
> wholesale, but AIUI the standalone firmware packages would
> be removed too, effectively making the USE flag non-optional, and
> removing the possibility of having managed firmware packages.
> (People would have
Peter Stuge schrieb:
> Kernel -sources USE is a handy way to install linux-firmware
> wholesale, but AIUI the standalone firmware packages would
> be removed too, effectively making the USE flag non-optional, and
> removing the possibility of having managed firmware packages.
> (People would have t
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > I don't like the binary distribution argument of include everything
> > to cover as many possible use cases as possible in one go.
> >
> > I very much like the high resolution of Gentoo packages. I'd hate to
> > enter a slippery slope toward lower resolution.
>
> Are
On 13/02/2013 18:33, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I don't like the binary distribution argument of include everything
> to cover as many possible use cases as possible in one go.
>
> I very much like the high resolution of Gentoo packages. I'd hate to
> enter a slippery slope toward lower resolution.
Are
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> People who don't need the firmware can deal with disabling it themselves.
I don't like the binary distribution argument of include everything
to cover as many possible use cases as possible in one go.
I very much like the high resolution of Gentoo packages. I'd hate to
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
>> Having 300 -firmware packages is silly.
>
> I can't help but noticing that some of the recently introduced iwlwifi
> firmware packages came from Chromium OS. So there seems to be interest
>
On 13/02/2013 15:50, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Indeed. Firmware is also needed for some RAID controllers.
> I imagine that users of the default profile are more likely to not need
> hand-holding here and more likely to want a lean system by default. But
> I have no strong opinion either
Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb:
> On 13/02/2013 14:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/457082
>> Instead of USE defaults, this could be turned on in the desktop
>> profile as wifi, radeon cards etc. are less likely to be present on
>> non-desktop systems.
> IIRC some serv
On 13/02/2013 14:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/457082
> Instead of USE defaults, this could be turned on in the desktop
> profile as wifi, radeon cards etc. are less likely to be present on
> non-desktop systems.
IIRC some server systems need ethernet cards' fir
On 13/02/2013 14:39, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> I can't help but noticing that some of the recently introduced iwlwifi
> firmware packages came from Chromium OS. So there seems to be interest
> in individual packages from downstreams over the linux-firmware package.
I would suppose the
Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
> Having 300 -firmware packages is silly.
I can't help but noticing that some of the recently introduced iwlwifi
firmware packages came from Chromium OS. So there seems to be interest
in individual packages from downstreams over the linux-firmware package.
Best
Maxim Kammerer schrieb:
>> Having 300 -firmware packages is silly.
> I agree, but think that the process can be more user-friendly than a
> savedconfig — perhaps a variable as was suggested already.
As the developer who came up with the savedconfig implementation, I am
the first one to admit that
Sergei Trofimovich schrieb:
> The source of confusion was non-working device by default. Maybe
> 'IUSE=+firmware; RDEPEND="firmware? ( sys-kernel/linux-firmware
> )"' for virtual/linux-sources would help user experience a bit.
+1
https://bugs.gentoo.org/457082
Instead of USE defaults, this could be
Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
> atmel-firmware ipw2100-firmware ipw2200-firmware b43-firmware
> b43legacy-firmware rtl8192su-firmware zd1201-firmware
> zd1211-firmware
>
> None of these are blockers on linux-firmware, none of these are
> included in linux firmware, none of these should be maske
Christopher Head schrieb:
>> Most external firmware is not needed to boot. If you need it to boot,
>> you will have to stow it in the initramfs.
> For those of us who prefer monolithic kernels, virtually all firmware
> is needed to boot. Even if a network interface doesn't need to be
> operational
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mar, 12-02-2013 a las 19:43 +, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
>> I am starting to believe that this is yet another good reason for
>> having official ebuilds building binaries off gentoo-sources through
>> genkernel. Pretty much the same I do
El mar, 12-02-2013 a las 19:43 +, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
> I am starting to believe that this is yet another good reason for
> having official ebuilds building binaries off gentoo-sources through
> genkernel. Pretty much the same I do in Sabayon since 2007.
>
I think shouldn't have any pro
I am starting to believe that this is yet another good reason for
having official ebuilds building binaries off gentoo-sources through
genkernel. Pretty much the same I do in Sabayon since 2007.
--
Fabio Erculiani
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:49:03 -0800
Alec Warner wrote:
> Most external firmware is not needed to boot. If you need it to boot,
> you will have to stow it in the initramfs.
For those of us who prefer monolithic kernels, virtually all firmware
is needed to boot. Even if a network interface doesn't
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:43:02 +0100
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Fabio Erculiani
> wrote:
> >> +1 from me; I've had a few machines break on kernel upgrades
> >> because I didn't have the proper firmware installed (I guess older
> >> kernel sources came with the firmwa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/10/2013 07:18 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> wrote:
>> I am marked maintainer of linux-firmware due to my desire to make sure
>> wifi related things work. I have no desire at all to imple
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> I am marked maintainer of linux-firmware due to my desire to make sure
> wifi related things work. I have no desire at all to implement use
> expand for this, HOWEVER, I am willing to accept a patch for that if it
> comes out even
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Douglas Freed wrote:
> How does having additional firmware installed affect security at all?
> Firmware is only loaded when specifically requested by a loaded driver that
> needs to use it, and only if that driver is actually in use. That's like
> saying a file th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/10/2013 04:45 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> wrote:
>> Honestly while I agree this could have been handled a little more
>> carefully we all win by having ONE place for firmware. The fir
> Combined with various less-than-free licenses, installing one huge blob of
> firmware is problematic for many users, also from a security point of
view.
How does having additional firmware installed affect security at all?
Firmware is only loaded when specifically requested by a loaded driver th
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Bruno wrote:
> On Sun, 10 February 2013 Maxim Kammerer wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> > I agree as I have also needed to google and search in forums to get
>> > proper firmware installed in the past in some machines :/
>>
>> for
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> Honestly while I agree this could have been handled a little more
> carefully we all win by having ONE place for firmware. The firmware
> package is like 20MB, if you don't have that much free harddrive space
> then you can use t
On Sun, 10 February 2013 Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > I agree as I have also needed to google and search in forums to get
> > proper firmware installed in the past in some machines :/
>
> for fw in $(strings -a -n 10 $(find /lib/modules -name '*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/10/2013 11:54 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> I agree as I have also needed to google and search in forums to get
>>> proper firmwar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/10/2013 10:55 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
>> # Some of these install to wrong directory, /lib64/firmware
>> # as opposed to correct /lib/firmware
>> # Some of these don't have maintaine
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> +1 from me; I've had a few machines break on kernel upgrades because I
>> didn't have the proper firmware installed (I guess older kernel
>> sources came with the firmware?).
>
> This is another problem, namely dependency level problem.
>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> I agree as I have also needed to google and search in forums to get
>> proper firmware installed in the past in some machines :/
>
> +1 from me; I've had a few machines break on kernel
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> (I guess older kernel sources came with the firmware?)
See e.g. https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42689#c5
--
Maxim Kammerer
Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I agree as I have also needed to google and search in forums to get
> proper firmware installed in the past in some machines :/
+1 from me; I've had a few machines break on kernel upgrades because I
didn't have the proper firmware installed (I
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I agree as I have also needed to google and search in forums to get
> proper firmware installed in the past in some machines :/
for fw in $(strings -a -n 10 $(find /lib/modules -name '*.ko') | sed
-n 's/^firmware=//p' | sort -u); do
if [ ! -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/10/2013 03:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen (10 Feb 2013)
> # The firmware cleanup, part #1. Can be unmasked after
> # cleaning up the package if it's still needed.
> # Some of these install to wrong directory, /lib64/firmware
>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Some of these install to wrong directory, /lib64/firmware
> # as opposed to correct /lib/firmware
> # Some of these don't have maintainer
> # Some of these are replaced by the firmware from the
> # linux-firmware package:
> net-wireless
El dom, 10-02-2013 a las 17:46 +0300, Sergei Trofimovich escribió:
[...]
> The source of confusion was non-working device by default.
> Maybe 'IUSE=+firmware; RDEPEND="firmware? ( sys-kernel/linux-firmware )"'
> for virtual/linux-sources would help user experience a bit.
>
> Sometimes firmware loa
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:10:51 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen (10 Feb 2013)
> # The firmware cleanup, part #1. Can be unmasked after
> # cleaning up the package if it's still needed.
> # Some of these install to wrong directory, /lib64/firmware
> # as opposed to correct /lib/firm
On 10/02/13 10:10, Samuli Suominen wrote:
# Samuli Suominen (10 Feb 2013)
# The firmware cleanup, part #1. Can be unmasked after
# cleaning up the package if it's still needed.
# Some of these install to wrong directory, /lib64/firmware
# as opposed to correct /lib/firmware
# Some of these don't
# Samuli Suominen (10 Feb 2013)
# The firmware cleanup, part #1. Can be unmasked after
# cleaning up the package if it's still needed.
# Some of these install to wrong directory, /lib64/firmware
# as opposed to correct /lib/firmware
# Some of these don't have maintainer
# Some of these are replac
52 matches
Mail list logo
