Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi,

Martin-Éric Racine wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi>

Thanks.  This patch does many things at once instead of the usual
practice of "one patch per logical change", but oh well.

[...]
> --- a/scripts/package/builddeb
> +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb
> @@ -79,9 +79,9 @@ fwdir="$objtree/debian/fwtmp"
>  kernel_headers_dir="$objtree/debian/hdrtmp"
>  libc_headers_dir="$objtree/debian/headertmp"
>  packagename=linux-image-$version
> -fwpackagename=linux-firmware-image
>  kernel_headers_packagename=linux-headers-$version
>  libc_headers_packagename=linux-libc-dev
> +fwpackagename=firmware-linux

Micronit: any reason the lines are reordered here?

> @@ -188,17 +188,17 @@ This is a packacked upstream version of the Linux kernel.
>  The sources may be found at most Linux ftp sites, including:
>  ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel
>  
> -Copyright: 1991 - 2009 Linus Torvalds and others.
> +Copyright: 1991-2012 Linus Torvalds and others.
>  
> -The git repository for mainline kernel development is at:
> -git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
> +The GIT repository for mainline kernel development is at:
> +git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git

I personally like to spell it as "Git". ;-)

[...]
> @@ -273,6 +273,9 @@ if [ -e "$tmpdir/lib/firmware" ]; then
>  
>  Package: $fwpackagename
>  Architecture: all
> +Conflicts: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
> +Provides: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
> +Replaces: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree

I assume you mean Breaks+Replaces.  Do the files actually overlap,
or is this change being overly cautious?  I would expect the files
not to overlap because the package build with deb-pkg puts firmware
in a versioned subdirectory "/lib/firmware/<version>".

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[Martin-Éric Racine]

2012/7/17 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi>
>
> Thanks.  This patch does many things at once instead of the usual
> practice of "one patch per logical change", but oh well.
>
> [...]
>> --- a/scripts/package/builddeb
>> +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb
>> @@ -79,9 +79,9 @@ fwdir="$objtree/debian/fwtmp"
>>  kernel_headers_dir="$objtree/debian/hdrtmp"
>>  libc_headers_dir="$objtree/debian/headertmp"
>>  packagename=linux-image-$version
>> -fwpackagename=linux-firmware-image
>>  kernel_headers_packagename=linux-headers-$version
>>  libc_headers_packagename=linux-libc-dev
>> +fwpackagename=firmware-linux
>
> Micronit: any reason the lines are reordered here?

Mostly to differenciate between versioned and non-versioned package targets.

>> @@ -188,17 +188,17 @@ This is a packacked upstream version of the Linux kernel.
>>  The sources may be found at most Linux ftp sites, including:
>>  ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel
>>
>> -Copyright: 1991 - 2009 Linus Torvalds and others.
>> +Copyright: 1991-2012 Linus Torvalds and others.
>>
>> -The git repository for mainline kernel development is at:
>> -git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
>> +The GIT repository for mainline kernel development is at:
>> +git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>
> I personally like to spell it as "Git". ;-)

That works for me too. Actually, what's the official spelling for it?

> [...]
>> @@ -273,6 +273,9 @@ if [ -e "$tmpdir/lib/firmware" ]; then
>>
>>  Package: $fwpackagename
>>  Architecture: all
>> +Conflicts: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
>> +Provides: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
>> +Replaces: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
>
> I assume you mean Breaks+Replaces.  Do the files actually overlap,
> or is this change being overly cautious?  I would expect the files
> not to overlap because the package build with deb-pkg puts firmware
> in a versioned subdirectory "/lib/firmware/<version>".

AFAIK they would overlap, hence the Conflicts.

Martin-Éric

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[maximilian attems]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:46:23PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> 2012/7/17 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>  Package: $fwpackagename
> >>  Architecture: all
> >> +Conflicts: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
> >> +Provides: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
> >> +Replaces: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
> >
> > I assume you mean Breaks+Replaces.  Do the files actually overlap,
> > or is this change being overly cautious?  I would expect the files
> > not to overlap because the package build with deb-pkg puts firmware
> > in a versioned subdirectory "/lib/firmware/<version>".
> 
> AFAIK they would overlap, hence the Conflicts.

This is wrong and properly fixed in -next.

-- 
maks

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[Martin-Éric Racine]

2012/7/18 maximilian attems <max@stro.at>:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:46:23PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> 2012/7/17 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >>  Package: $fwpackagename
>> >>  Architecture: all
>> >> +Conflicts: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
>> >> +Provides: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
>> >> +Replaces: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
>> >
>> > I assume you mean Breaks+Replaces.  Do the files actually overlap,
>> > or is this change being overly cautious?  I would expect the files
>> > not to overlap because the package build with deb-pkg puts firmware
>> > in a versioned subdirectory "/lib/firmware/<version>".
>>
>> AFAIK they would overlap, hence the Conflicts.
>
> This is wrong and properly fixed in -next.

Max,

Exactly what is wrong with this fix? Could you tell us exactly what
you did differently and why?

Martin-Éric

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[Jonathan Nieder]

Martin-Éric Racine wrote:

>                                      Could you tell us exactly what
> you did differently and why?

At least the "what" should be answerable by looking at what is in
linux-next.

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[maximilian attems]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:19:25AM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> 2012/7/18 maximilian attems <max@stro.at>:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:46:23PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> >> 2012/7/17 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >>  Package: $fwpackagename
> >> >>  Architecture: all
> >> >> +Conflicts: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
> >> >> +Provides: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
> >> >> +Replaces: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
> >> >
> >> > I assume you mean Breaks+Replaces.  Do the files actually overlap,
> >> > or is this change being overly cautious?  I would expect the files
> >> > not to overlap because the package build with deb-pkg puts firmware
> >> > in a versioned subdirectory "/lib/firmware/<version>".
> >>
> >> AFAIK they would overlap, hence the Conflicts.
> >
> > This is wrong and properly fixed in -next.
> 
> Exactly what is wrong with this fix? Could you tell us exactly what
> you did differently and why?

Jonathan already answered it, saying that firmwares are put
in versioned dir.

Just use git to look it up, easy:
~/src/linux-next (master %=)$ git log scripts/package/builddeb

6607ddadf93d19c7f64139f1475c342152f39fe5

Your conflict would mean to kick out the official debian firmware
packages which is not something we want!

-- 
maks

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[Martin-Éric Racine]

2012/7/18 maximilian attems <max@stro.at>:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:19:25AM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> 2012/7/18 maximilian attems <max@stro.at>:
>> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:46:23PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> >> 2012/7/17 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  Package: $fwpackagename
>> >> >>  Architecture: all
>> >> >> +Conflicts: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
>> >> >> +Provides: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
>> >> >> +Replaces: firmware-linux-free, firmware-linux-nonfree
>> >> >
>> >> > I assume you mean Breaks+Replaces.  Do the files actually overlap,
>> >> > or is this change being overly cautious?  I would expect the files
>> >> > not to overlap because the package build with deb-pkg puts firmware
>> >> > in a versioned subdirectory "/lib/firmware/<version>".
>> >>
>> >> AFAIK they would overlap, hence the Conflicts.
>> >
>> > This is wrong and properly fixed in -next.
>>
>> Exactly what is wrong with this fix? Could you tell us exactly what
>> you did differently and why?
>
> Jonathan already answered it, saying that firmwares are put
> in versioned dir.

Does the kernel look for modules in versioned, then non-versioned
directories, in that order? More importantly, does it even attempt
looking in the versioned directory at all?

Martin-Éric

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[Bjørn Mork]

maximilian attems <max@stro.at> writes:

> Jonathan already answered it, saying that firmwares are put
> in versioned dir.
>
> Just use git to look it up, easy:
> ~/src/linux-next (master %=)$ git log scripts/package/builddeb
>
> 6607ddadf93d19c7f64139f1475c342152f39fe5

But..but.. won't that prevent installing firmware for more than one
builddeb kernel?  I.e., shouldn't the fw package name also be versioned
if you are going to do this (which it seems you are)?

But then again, I thought versioned firmware was dropped from the
official packages for good reasons.  Any reason why you couldn't add
/lib/firmware/something (where "something" is fixed and independent of
version) to the firmware.agent search path, and use that for unofficial
linux-firmware packages?

That would allow unofficial firmware packages from different kernel
versions to continue sharing their package name without conflicting with
the official packages in any way.


Bjørn

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[Bjørn Mork]

Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi> writes:

> Does the kernel look for modules in versioned, then non-versioned
> directories, in that order? More importantly, does it even attempt
> looking in the versioned directory at all?

/lib/udev/firmware.agent does this:

FIRMWARE_DIRS="/lib/firmware/$(uname -r) /lib/firmware /usr/local/lib/firmware /usr/lib/hotplug/firmware"

for DIR in $FIRMWARE_DIRS; do
    [ -e "$DIR/$FIRMWARE" ] || continue



Bjørn

Re: [PATCH] scripts/package/builddeb: upgrade to current practices

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Tuesday 2012-07-17 21:46, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>>> @@ -188,17 +188,17 @@ This is a packacked upstream version of the Linux kernel.
>>>  The sources may be found at most Linux ftp sites, including:
>>>  ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel
>>>
>>> -Copyright: 1991 - 2009 Linus Torvalds and others.
>>> +Copyright: 1991-2012 Linus Torvalds and others.
>>>
>>> -The git repository for mainline kernel development is at:
>>> -git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
>>> +The GIT repository for mainline kernel development is at:
>>> +git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>>
>> I personally like to spell it as "Git". ;-)
>
>That works for me too. Actually, what's the official spelling for it?

The acronymic usage of "GIT" to mean Global Information Tracker has
not caught on. Therefore most likely "Git"; like "Linux", a noun, a
name.