On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 00:01 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > severity 706659 normal > thanks > > On 2013-05-05 21:29, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 20:57 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > > could you explain why you changed this report's severity to wishlist? > > > wishlist severity is designed for mere RFEs. > > This *is* a request for enhancement. > > It is, but it is not a mere request for enhancement. wishlist severity > is not designed for bug reports. > > > > Previously, you wrote: > > > Therefore, the prompt is misleading and may cause the user to install > > > unneeded software or change hardware without a strong reason. > > There are very few cases where the current statement is incorrect. In > > your example, the Realtek PHY firmware patch is needed because (if I > > understand correctly) the ROM firmware is incompatible with a lot of > > other Ethernet devices and won't establish a link. Even though it may > > not affect the specific cable and switch you were using during > > installation, you will not want to find out about this bug when you plug > > the machine in somewhere else! (And I don't want to see this bug being > > reported against the driver.) > > The proper way to avoid such reports would be to warn admins if a > buggy firmware is detected (and ideally offering an update).
It is detected. > Even if there are few cases where the current statement is incorrect, > this is a bug. If you're confident that there are few cases, feel free > to set severity to minor, but I have 2 personal PCs, and both have a > device where the current formulation is inappropriate. > > I don't know much about this specific example, but I'm skeptical about > Realtek shipping a firmware which fails in "a lot" of scenarios, and > continuing to pre-install that buggy firmware today. If the firmware is loaded from ROM, as I suspect it is, then they can't change it except by re-spinning the chip which is extremely expensive - or, as they do, by patching it from the driver code. I assume there are several different bugs fixed by the various different firmware patches for each chip. > > I don't understand what you mean about changing hardware. Is this about > > people who think firmware is evil if it's on disk but not if it's in > > flash? > > I don't know, but there must be reasons why the missing firmware is > not in Debian. Some admins may prefer changing their hardware to > taking that risk. Oh, I see what you mean. > > > Radeon cards are good examples of devices which are improved by > > > firmware without being unusable without. > > The current AMD GPUs cannot be used without firmware, except through the > > userland VESA driver which has appalling performance and doesn't support > > the native resolution of most displays (or any widescreen displays, > > AFAIK). We definitely should be alerting users that this hardware does > > need firmware to work properly. > > > > OK, I was thinking about older GPUs such as Radeon HD 5650M, which can > use the radeon driver without installing non-free firmware. Anyway, > both of these cases are good examples; even in your case, the current > prompt says firmware is needed for the devices to operate. "Operate" > and "work properly" are not the same. And even "work properly" would > not be quite true - if vesa works bug-free, I'd say the device can > "work properly". Maybe not "work well". The VESA driver does its job OK, but the system as a whole is buggy if it can't drive the connected displays at native resolution or use the actual GPU. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If God had intended Man to program, we'd have been born with serial I/O ports.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
