On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 06:27:29PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > On 2024-04-01 18:05, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > The included firmware contributed to Debian 12 being a huge success, > > but it wasn't the only factor. > > Unfortunately, the shipped firmwares are now almost a year old, including > for unstable. I am following the progress since quite a few years and I have > seen many possible contributors trying to help and fail. The current > situation is that Debian does not work well with recent AMD-based laptops > due to firmware being too old. Therefore, we are back at users trying to > update the firmware by copying them from random places (as for myself, I am > using the deb generated by upstream's Makefile). > > My personal impression is that we are repeating a common scheme in Debian: > maintainers don't have time to move forward due to the task being > non-trivial for reasons of our own, people are proposing to help (6 people > in [1]), but this is ignored by the maintainers as they don't have time. > > [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/firmware-nonfree/-/merge_requests Why is updating the firmware packages not trivial? Is it because of licensing issues? I always thought it's just copying a bunch of files from the linux-firmware repo (but I also often wondered why is the package often not up to date). -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature