On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 9:52:16 AM EST Steve McIntyre wrote:
Is this just going to be for x86 machines, or is it likely to be useful for >> ~everybody?It will be useful for all architectures, except I don't think there are >FreeBSD and Hurd drivers yet, but it's an arch:all package regardless.
IIRC d-i uses kernel messages to work out what firmware to use. Is theWell, the "nonfree" (quotes because I suspect it's built from the same
kernel driver still going to be looking for the older (non-free) firmware >> still? If so, that should probably be changed.
free source, but by definition we can't be sure without an identical binary) >firmware currently hijacks the proper name of the firmware. I'd love for
my package to take it over, but if not a hack could be to set the kernel >option to look for the "development" firmware.
Ah... It would be more *normal* to ship the source. Is there a reasonSorry, should've revised my footnote from the mail to the kernel team. None >of the firmware in firmware-free is built from source, and that's what I was >expressing concern to. To the best of my knowledge, this package is the
first to be built as such. (Given the recent Lenovo discussion on -devel >about having to ship that firmware in non-free, I suspect this is >little-known.)
Right. I'm more asking whether it's useful to try and pull this in forI guess the majority of users are on amd64/i386 systems, but as the firmware
all arches, or just for amd64 / i386 for now.
There's not much point having the firmware available if theActually with my draft udeb, it just uses the same workaround to find
kernel isn't going to look for it AFAICS?
|Location:||Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK|
|Nodes:||8 (1 / 7)|