[Dev] problems with replacements for blacklisted packages
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.
> : https://git.parabola.nu/packages/libretools.git/commit/?h=isacdaavid&id=313d1ee619363eca0b8b0742a2d58c9ce18877fd
> : https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2017-October/005936.html
I asked Emulatorman on #hyperbola
- 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
- 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
More information about the Dev