On 06/12/2012 01:34 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > However, amd64-microcode has a different upstream
iirc so do the different firmware parts that src:firmware-nonfree builds. > and it would already > have to generate a separate binary package anyway for license reasons, iirc so are the other binary packages that get build from src:firmware-nonfree. > so what is the point of adding it to firmware-nonfree? it would be nice to have everything in one place (= one src package), than to have things split over several, make the firmware stuff be updated all at once, and better integrated (by using '^-firmware' prefix). sure, most of them you could do without merging it on the source package level, but why make things more complicated than they have to be. > We could make firmware-nonfree "recommend intel-microcode | > amd64-microcode" on [i386, amd64], though. That sounds like a good > idea to help people install the microcode updates. ack. > After all, just about every new Intel and AMD processor has microcode > patches issued, and both people and vendors are still as bad as they > have always been at keeping their BIOS/EFI up-to-date... yep. -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd72ba1.4000...@progress-technologies.net
