On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 17:55 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:09:46 +0100 > richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > +This file attempts to document the reason why a firmware is not > > > present +in this bundle. > > > > From the user's point of view this not really helpful. > > Wouldn't a in-kernel table of known but missing firmware files make > > more sense? The kernel could write a log like "Yeah, I know this > > firmware but sadly I don't have it because of ..." > > The firmware file may be absent on the system even if it's in the > linux-firmware tree. Conversely, the firmware may be present on the > system but not in the linux-firmware tree. > > The kernel doesn't know whether the firmware is missing due to > licensing issues or due to misconfiguration. The kernel cannot know > that. And I don't think the kernel should include as much information > as the MISSING file would include. I can see some value in an index explaining where to get firmware, whether it's available from the copyright holder or some licensee or must be extracted from Windows drivers with a particular tool. I'm not sure whether linux-firmware.git is the right place for that, though. Would distributions include this in their packages and would users be able to find it there? Would a wiki page be more useful? Putting my Debian hat, I can say that we don't distribute any of the older files that are 'GPL but no source visible', while we do distribute some files not included in linux-firmware.git that require click-wrap licences. I also prune files that aren't referenced by the kernel version in any current release. So a file that says what's missing from linux-firmware.git would not be that useful to Debian users, for example. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy? A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
