From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755711AbYIKQjK (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:39:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752521AbYIKQi5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:38:57 -0400 Received: from senator.holtmann.net ([87.106.208.187]:40939 "EHLO mail.holtmann.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751167AbYIKQi5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:38:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: Allow release-specific firmware dir From: Marcel Holtmann To: Greg KH Cc: Thierry Vignaud , David Miller , dwmw2@infradead.org, jeffm@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <20080911134042.GB3293@kroah.com> References: <48C68507.6000609@suse.com> <1221087719.13621.50.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20080910.160505.14060698.davem@davemloft.net> <20080911134042.GB3293@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:39:25 +0200 Message-Id: <1221151165.6309.55.camel@californication> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Greg, > > > > This isn't compatible with the version of udev that people actually have > > > > installed, today. And it's also the _wrong_ thing to do. > > > > > > > > Firmware really _isn't_ version-specific. > > > > > > Tell that to every Debian and Debian derived system on the planet. > > > > > > To my knowledge, it is only fedora and possibly one or two other dists > > > that put the firmware files in a unary /lib/firmware location, rather > > > than a versioned /lib/firmware/$KERNELRELASE one. > > > > We (Mandriva Linux) do too. > > Why other distro cannot package firmware separatly for all their kernel > > flavors? > > > > Firmware are not version-specific. > > Yes it is, when it is bundled with the kernel source tree itself. > > Why do people not realize this? > > This is a real problem for distros, and for anyone who wants to have > multiple kernel versions on a single machine. Jeff's patch fixes this. once you move the firmware into its own package built from a separate source tree (and not the kernel) this is no longer a problem. Nobody ever made the claim that the firmware depends on the kernel version. It might depend on a specific version of the firmware, but that is different from the kernel version. If you break the firmware or if a driver requires a specific firmware version it should indicate this. And yes, the in-kernel firmware versions should follow here at some point, since the external firmware versions had to do it already for quite some time, because otherwise more people would have complained loudly when installing their own kernels. What is wrong with moving the firmware into its own package with its own version number? Regards Marcel