On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 3:21 AM Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Di, 16.12.25 16:30, Hans de Goede ([email protected]) wrote: > > > My primary reason for going with Stubble for now is simply how > > much time I've to spend on this. This is not my highest priority > > at Qualcomm so I'm mainly doing this as a side-project and > > in my own free time. > > > > Also we need a source of the json files which map DMI strings + > > panel EDID to which DTB to use. Stubble provides these json files > > and systemd-boot does not. So we need to package Stubble anyways > > even if just for the json files. > > Hmm, if this is generic data we can certainly look into shipping that > in our tree. > > I have no idea why canonical forked sd-stub, I guess Canonical just does > Canonical things... They haven#t submitted any PRs for that mapping > data though. >
I think I'd be more comfortable if sd-stub had these capabilities than needing to ship stubble, but I guess this also depends on the complexity of the changes on whether they can be brought back upstream...? -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
