[Dev] problems with replacements for blacklisted packages

Luke Shumaker lukeshu at lukeshu.com
Sat Dec 23 03:06:56 GMT 2017

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:37:03 -0500,
Isaac David wrote:
> Luke Shumaker wrote :
> >  - b43-fwcutter is not replaced by, but is provided by
> >    libre/b43-tools.  For one, I am flabbergasted that whatever freedom
> >    issues b43-fwcutter has aren't also issues with b43-tools.
> >    Secondly, b43-tools should probably replaces=(b43-fwcutter), or be
> >    renamed to b43-fwcutter.
> i'm scratching my head over this too. their respective PKGBUILDs
> aren't like each other, but where does b43-tools even come from? it's
> not in the AUR.
> [1]: https://git.parabola.nu/packages/libretools.git/commit/?h=isacdaavid&id=313d1ee619363eca0b8b0742a2d58c9ce18877fd
> [2]: https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2017-October/005936.html

I asked Emulatorman on #hyperbola

Rough timeline:

 - core/b43-fwcutter is only useful with non-free firmware
 - core/b43-fwcutter is blacklisted because of the above
 - openfwwf, a libre b43 firmware, is released
 - Emulatorman packages libre/b43-tools for openfwwf, either not
   realizing that core/b43-fwcutter would work with openfwwf, or
   forgetting that core/b43-fwcutter ever existed.

The b43-fwcutter program in both packages is identical.  The
difference is that b43-tools also includes other utilities like

So, what we should do:

 - unblacklist core/b43-fwcutter
 - have libre/b43-tools provides=() and conflicts=() b43-fwcutter, but
   not replaces=()
 - verify that openfwwf can be built with core/b43-fwcutter (that it
   doesn't need b43-asm or any of the other programs included in
   libre/b43-tools but not core/b43-fwcutter).
   * if it can:
     - move b43-tools to pcr
     - have openfwwf reference b43-fwcutter instead of b43-tools

Happy hacking,

More information about the Dev mailing list