On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 16:49 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:06 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > >> On a tangent, I would like to have a discussion about in-kernel firmware > >> as it becomes split out and loaded using request_firmware. So that third > >> parties can supply different firmware updates, can we agree that it's > >> worthwhile having one firmware package for each firmware file set needed > >> by the kernel package, in the longer term? > > > > This is fine (well, not for F8 obviously, but we can make it okay for > > F9), with a few caveats: > > 1) The module *MUST* have the needed firmware tagged appropriately so > > that we can figure out what firmware to pull into initrds, the > > installer, etc > > 2) We should probably follow the path being blazed with wireless > > firmware where we include the multiple, incompatible firmware versions > > in one package. Otherwise, the fact that multiple kernels can be > > installed leads to a a bit of a quagmire > > 3) Care needs to be taken so that upgrades will work correctly once the > > firmware has moved. A requires is one answer, and maybe the best, but > > there definitely needs to be some thought > > > > 4) This effort must be done upstream using the current standard kernel firmware > mechanisms and then trickle down into Fedora from upstream. I can already > hear Dave J. screaming in the night if we are going to carry Fedora specific > kernel patches for this. *grin* I just thought that was a given :-) Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
