Sorry for the delay in replying to this. On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 00:52 +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:26:44 PM Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 23:50 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > > > On 01/14/2013 12:27 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > OK, I've worked this out now: there are two post-processing steps > > > > required, one of which is done by './autogen.sh install', and one of > > > > which (add a checksum) is not done at all. I've added that step to it > > > > and can now rebuild a bit-identical image. > > > > > > > > So I've applied this, made a few fixes, and pushed. > > > > > > Sorry, I took half sabbatical. Now cleaning inbox. > > > > > > I believe Christian releases a new version(1.9.7) recently, > > > and I did send 1.9.6 months ago. It should be updated. > > Depends. [This would be another question... what qualifies for > a new push to linux-firmware? Should there be one for every > series-of-related-patches? release e.g.: 1.9.7, 1.9.8? Or after > the firmware passed the test of time?] You should assume that updates to linux-firmware will quickly appear in distribution packages. So, only send versions that you think are ready for everyone to use. > Anyway, the biggest 'new thing' in 1.9.7 was getting "Link Time > Optimization" ready [1]. > > > I'm happy to take either a single patch for the new release or > > one patch for each commit in your repository, whichever you prefer. > Would it be possible to attach a carl9170fw-x.y.z-source.tar.xz/bz2/gz/zip > along the carl9170-1.fw binary instead of the source dump in carl9170fw/? Perhaps, but what would be the benefit? Ben. > I've picked up all of Ben's carl9170fw patches and added them into > carl9170fw-master. So in theory we are good to go. > > Regards > > Christian > > [1] -- Ben Hutchings Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.