Hello Aurelien, sorry for the latest reply!
Aurelien Jarno [2019-09-06 20:04 +0200]: > > > Is pci.ids in its preferred form for modification? The upstream git > > > history suggests that this file is being automatically generated from > > > the database at <https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/>. The database itself does not seem to be accessible, though. Even that site presents the textual pci.ids file as *the* reference artifact to download. > > > Wouldn't someone wanting > > > to edit pci.ids want to run want to modify the database and run the > > > same code upstream runs to generate the new pci.ids file? > > The source here is IMO a bit fuzzy, given that this is factual data. > > There's a website, the purpose of which is to make it easy for the > > current maintainers to incorporate proposed entries from third parties. Agreed -- in that sense, the real *source* is the bureaucracy involved that hands out new vendor IDs (external) and the vendor-internal process to assign new product IDs. So if you really want to make changes there, you need to engage with the vendor, and given how these are just a convention and factual data, this makes no sense. The "normal" case would be for someone to spot a mistake in pci.ids, in which case it should certainly be reported to that database. > > So, I guess very strictly speaking this is not the "source" "source" is rather philosophical for this case; but from the perspective of some package maintainer wanting to fix e. g. a typo in a product ID, this text file very much *is* the preferred form of modification :) > Adding the systemd maintainers in Cc: as both usb.ids and pci.ids are in > the systemd source package. Thanks for the notification. However, it seems we all agree that the current status quo is fine? Martin _______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
