[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] kernel 2.6.34-1

Jan de Groot jan at jgc.homeip.net
Wed May 19 10:43:48 EDT 2010

On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 16:39 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 19.05.2010 16:19, schrieb Dan McGee:
> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
> >> Am 19.05.2010 10:56, schrieb Evangelos Foutras:
> >>> Also did a diff [1] between the file lists of kernel26-firmware-2.6.34-1
> >>> and linux-firmware-git-20100519-1. It shows that ralink firmware has
> >>> indeed been added to the linux-firmware repository, which should resolve
> >>> FS#19519 [2].
> >>
> >> I did that too and noticed the same. It would also replace all intel
> >> ucode packages, and some more I don't know about. However, it is
> >> considerably bigger than kernel26-firmware (2MB vs. 12MB).
> > 
> > How often does it need to be updated? We now (needlessly?) have the
> > firmware package track the actual kernel package so it ends up getting
> > re-downloaded a lot more often than probably necessary, so the above
> > package, while large, would probably be updated less anyway (and would
> > be an 'any' package?).
> Everytime someone complains about a firmware file missing.
> Seriously, look at the commit log, it only had 23 commits this year:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=summary
> I guess we would upgrade it at most once a month.

+1 for replacing all firmware packages included in this one. I don't
care about the few extra megabytes on my system. This saves us uploading
and downloading a binary firmware package on every kernel update,
generates less packages in the repositories and moves kernel26-firmware
to an arch=any package. The only disadvantage is the 10MB extra size,
but the advantages are bigger than that.

More information about the arch-general mailing list