Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #57371 > unrolled thread

Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

Contents

  Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2017-03-30 03:30 +0200
    Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2017-03-30 23:10 +0200
      Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc Paul Fertser <fercerpav@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 07:20 +0200
        Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de> - 2017-03-31 08:00 +0200
        Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2017-03-31 15:40 +0200
          Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de> - 2017-03-31 19:00 +0200
            Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2017-03-31 19:30 +0200
              Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de> - 2017-03-31 19:50 +0200
                Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2017-03-31 21:10 +0200
    Processed: Re: Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend  firmware-ath9k-htc owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) - 2017-03-30 23:10 +0200

#57371 — Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Source: linux
Version: 4.10~rc6-1~exp1
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: open-ath9k-htc-firmware@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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57382

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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-firmware@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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57386

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-firmware@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:fercerpav@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57387

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-firmware@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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57396

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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-firmware@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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57402

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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-firmware@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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57403

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57404

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57405

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57383 — Processed: Re: Bug#859066: linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 moreinfo
Bug #859066 [src:linux] linux-image-*: recommend firmware-ath9k-htc
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
859066: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=859066
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web