Apparently the qlogic drivers don''t have any firmware included in FC7, so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the firmware goes in the kernel package? Peter says the support for Anaconda / mkinitrd to load the firmware is already written, so we could do it either way.
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 16:16 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:> Apparently the qlogic drivers don''t have any firmware included in FC7, > so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the > kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the > firmware goes in the kernel package? > > Peter says the support for Anaconda / mkinitrd to load the firmware > is already written, so we could do it either way.If it fits these guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware We should probably do it in a separate package as described here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00292.html so qlogic-firmware or some such. josh
Chuck Ebbert wrote:> Apparently the qlogic drivers don''t have any firmware included in FC7, > so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the > kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the > firmware goes in the kernel package?I personally prefer for it to go into an external package that we ask Andrew Vasquez at Qlogic to maintain post-merge, but for now I think it belongs in the kernel package proper. Dave?> Peter says the support for Anaconda / mkinitrd to load the firmware > is already written, so we could do it either way.Yeah. I''ve been a complete ass and misunderstood how some of the firmware loading implementation works - just went and looked at this code too, can see it''s all already in there actually (in nash). Jon.
Josh Boyer wrote:> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 16:16 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: >> Apparently the qlogic drivers don''t have any firmware included in FC7, >> so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the >> kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the >> firmware goes in the kernel package? >> >> Peter says the support for Anaconda / mkinitrd to load the firmware >> is already written, so we could do it either way. > > If it fits these guidelines: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmwareYeah. I saw those. But the problem is that this might be needed in the bootpath. We /probably/ don''t want the kernel package depending on a billion of these other packages for the moment - do we? Wouldn''t it just be easier to have the firmware in that package for now, since it used to be in the kernel anyway? Eventually we need to fix this differently. Jon.
Jon Masters wrote:> Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 16:16 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: >>> Apparently the qlogic drivers don''t have any firmware included in FC7, >>> so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the >>> kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the >>> firmware goes in the kernel package? >>> >>> Peter says the support for Anaconda / mkinitrd to load the firmware >>> is already written, so we could do it either way. >> >> If it fits these guidelines: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware > > Yeah. I saw those. But the problem is that this might be needed in the > bootpath. We /probably/ don''t want the kernel package depending on a > billion of these other packages for the moment - do we? Wouldn''t it just > be easier to have the firmware in that package for now, since it used to > be in the kernel anyway? Eventually we need to fix this differently.Hey, mkinitrd is required too and it''s not part of the kernel package. After thinking about it, I vote for a separate package if it doesn''t cause too much pain.
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 13:15 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:> Jon Masters wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > >> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 16:16 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > >>> Apparently the qlogic drivers don''t have any firmware included in FC7, > >>> so nobody can actually use a qlogic adapter. Should we be patching the > >>> kernel like in FC6 or do we need a separate package? Or maybe the > >>> firmware goes in the kernel package? > >>> > >>> Peter says the support for Anaconda / mkinitrd to load the firmware > >>> is already written, so we could do it either way. > >> > >> If it fits these guidelines: > >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware > > > > Yeah. I saw those. But the problem is that this might be needed in the > > bootpath. We /probably/ don''t want the kernel package depending on a > > billion of these other packages for the moment - do we? Wouldn''t it just > > be easier to have the firmware in that package for now, since it used to > > be in the kernel anyway? Eventually we need to fix this differently. > > Hey, mkinitrd is required too and it''s not part of the kernel package. > After thinking about it, I vote for a separate package if it doesn''t cause > too much pain.For fresh installs, it''s not a big deal. We can stick the firmware package in the hardware support group which is installed by default and so people will usually be fine[1]. For upgrades, though, we have no indicator to tell yum/anaconda that this new package is needed for the hardware to be functional. Which means that people do an upgrade, the new package doesn''t get installed and people are left with a non-functional system. Any answer for this kind of sucks as it''s either something like a requires in the kernel package or a one-off hack :/ Jeremy [1] Eventually we probably need to do something to help ensure that you don''t deselect it, but for the purposes of Fedora 7 we can probably get away with saying "don''t do that"