Whatever you (Gentoo developers) do, do not use bios for the
category -- well not for anything really.
BIOS is merely one specific type of (shitty beyond belief) firmware
on one specific type of (shitty beyond belief) hardware. (Well, I've
seen the odd non-PC-platform use the term too. TI DSPs come to mind.)
Don't make the mistake of assuming that BIOS is synonym to firmware
even if it may be the only firmware you've encountered so far.
Thank you
//Peter
07-22-2012, 08:48 PM
"Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina"
ROMs category suggestion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 01:22 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
>> sys-bios?
>
> Whatever you (Gentoo developers) do, do not use bios for the
> category -- well not for anything really.
>
> BIOS is merely one specific type of (shitty beyond belief) firmware
> on one specific type of (shitty beyond belief) hardware. (Well, I've
> seen the odd non-PC-platform use the term too. TI DSPs come to mind.)
>
> Don't make the mistake of assuming that BIOS is synonym to firmware
> even if it may be the only firmware you've encountered so far.
A fair point, suggestion retracted. I'm on board with sys-firmware as
well, but I do see some advantage of the current way of putting the
firmware in the category of what it is for...
- -Zero
>
>
> Thank you
>
> //Peter
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Il 22/07/2012 07:22, Maxim Kammerer ha scritto:
> just pointing out that there is not much information gained in the
> package name,
Trust me it usually helps more than a little bit to have a common
category for them.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
07-25-2012, 05:16 PM
Kent Fredric
ROMs category suggestion
On 22 July 2012 16:12, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I've got a few ROMs to add to the tree and some which are already in
> the tree if people have a suggestion where they should live. Short
> list:
>
> ipxe
> openbios
> seabios
> sgabios
> vgabios
>
> --
> Doug Goldstein
>
I just noticed that the sys-firmware category has been added to the
categories file, but no corresponding directory in portage exists yet.
I understand this is a temporary thing, and the only thing that
notices that there is this discrepancy is software I've written (
https://metacpan.org/source/KENTNL/Gentoo-Overlay-1.0.2/lib/Gentoo/Overlay.pm#L135
).
It doesn't warrant the shenanigans of a full bug report, ( And I have
no idea how one would categories this sort of bug ), just I dislike
the inconsistency of there being a directory listed in the categories
file without also having that directory in existence.
( This bug is really all CVS's fault, the directory is created, but
its empty -> marked as dead )
In short, "Yay, thanks for sys-firmware, I look forward to it not
being an empty category"
Just I would have hoped that this category hadn't been created until
there was something ready to put in it =)
On 23 July 2012 08:48, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> A fair point, suggestion retracted. I'm on board with sys-firmware as
> well, but I do see some advantage of the current way of putting the
> firmware in the category of what it is for...
If you wanted, you could do something like x11-drivers/ do , and have
a standard of adding a little subcategorization:
sys-firmware/video-ati
Or something of that sort. You'd be having to sacrifice downstream
package name not being identical to upstream though. But Lots of the
ones I see listed could be generalised like that.
> In short, "Yay, thanks for sys-firmware, I look forward to it not
> being an empty category"
We could create a category metadata file.
Is the following O.K.:
"The sys-firmware category contains various firmware and microcode."
Ulrich
07-26-2012, 06:03 AM
Duncan
ROMs category suggestion
ChÃ*-Thanh Christopher Nguyá»…n posted on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:58:30 +0200 as
excerpted:
> Kent Fredric schrieb:
>> On 23 July 2012 08:48, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina <zerochaos@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>> I do see some advantage of the current way of putting the
>>> firmware in the category of what it is for...
>>
>> If you wanted, you could do something like x11-drivers/ do , and have a
>> standard of adding a little subcategorization:
>
> Could you be more specific? What does x11-drivers/ do that applies here?
... he's obviously referring to the middle "sub-category",
-video- -input- etc.
But your point about putting that in the category instead, thus having
firmware-video, firmware-tv, firmware-sound, etc, instead of putting them
all in sys-firmware, DOES make sense. For firmware-* categories that
would otherwise just have a single package or two, there could be a
firmware-misc, if category-proliferation is seen to be a big issue.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
> ChÃ*-Thanh Christopher Nguyá»…n posted on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:58:30
> +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > Kent Fredric schrieb:
> >> On 23 July 2012 08:48, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> >> <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>> I do see some advantage of the current way of putting the
> >>> firmware in the category of what it is for...
> >>
> >> If you wanted, you could do something like x11-drivers/ do , and
> >> have a standard of adding a little subcategorization:
> >
> > Could you be more specific? What does x11-drivers/ do that applies
> > here?
>
> x11-drivers/xf86-video-ati
> x11-drivers/xf86-video-intel
>
> x11-drivers/xf86-input-evdev
But you are aware that this is *upstream* naming?
Similarly, ati-drivers (which is not upstream naming :P)
and nvidia-drivers don't follow the suite.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
07-26-2012, 08:13 AM
Kent Fredric
ROMs category suggestion
On 26 July 2012 19:32, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> But you are aware that this is *upstream* naming?
>
> Similarly, ati-drivers (which is not upstream naming :P)
> and nvidia-drivers don't follow the suite.
I wasn't aware of that, but thats beside the point I was trying to
make. Its just a mechanism that allows an appoximation of a 3-tier
system without needing a 3-teir system.
ie: sys-firmware/video/ati approximated as sys-firmware/video-ati ,
which seems slighly better than the competing ways of doing it like:
firmware-video/ati-firmware
firmware-video/ati
and any category name with "Firmware" in it, will result in lots of
redundant names exposed to users/deps if the package /also/ has
firmware in the name.
There's also the other thing to consider, and thats there's a lot of
hardware related stuff that is similar to firmware in a way, but also
totally devoid of a central category for it. Namely, kernel level
drivers. ( Which are not /that/ far removed from firmware, considering
that you can compile firmware into kernels and they're of similar
levels of necessity ).
We may as well suggest sys-hardware/ and put things like tp_smapi
and prism54-firmware all in that one category.
In essence, the rationale behind having a sys-firmware category for
all firmware, but no sys-drivers category for all device
drivers/modules seems an oversight.
But I think however you do it, the absence of a 3-tier system hamstrings you.
The perk of *not* having 'firmware' in the category name means you can
put drivers in the category as-is, and add firmware to the category
as-is, without needing to have redundant information. In a
sys-hardware/* hardware-$class/* layout, things without "-firmware"
are assumed kernel drivers , and things with -firmware are known as
firmware.
ROMs category suggestion
