On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 09:42:39PM +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote: > On Tuesday 28 December 2004 21:12, ee21rh wrote: > > Comments? > > Now we need a kernel-module-at76c503a-2.6.9 package that deps on this > one. Know any floating around? I've got a at76c503a-based Corega USB > wireless that I can run tests on including firmware upload via hotplug, > etc. Oh, which reminds me. If someone does a package like that and the firmware has redistribution problems I think it's almost best if there are no dependancies between the packages. Well, it's really a balance between 1) User is told to add repo X and "yum install kernel-module-foo" which doesn't work since he's missing a dependancy, then has to grab a .nosrc.rpm (or spec file), build a rpm, install it and try again. He's probably given up already after step #1 2) User gets driver installed but it doesn't work and he has no idea that a firmware file is needed as well. Since he doesn't watch his dmesg/syslog he never finds out either. If he does, he can grab the firmware straight from the net or in .src.rpm/.nosrc.rpm or .noarch.rpm form. There's already quite a few in-kernel drivers that need a firmware file to work and the kernel doesn't have dependancies for those, so #2 would fit that policy (or lack of one :-) ) Or maybe we just need a fedora-firmwares.org/fedora-binary-only-blobs.org yum repo located in a suitable country ;) Then there's the userland stuff requiring kernel-module-xxx stuff (nvidia ;) ) which I've also found to cause some annoyances. I just nuke the dependancy in my own builds of the thing :-) -- Pekka Pietikainen
