Bug 1211055
| Summary: | Provide v4l-cx25840.fw that was in ivtv-firmware | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno> |
| Component: | linux-firmware | Assignee: | David Woodhouse <dwmw2> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 22 | CC: | axel.thimm, dwmw2, extras-orphan, jarodwilson, jwboyer, kernel-maint, kwizart, nphilipp, segg.gill |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-06-17 13:26:36 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Bruno Wolff III
2015-04-12 14:48:43 UTC
This package is in orphan but hasn't been blocked. https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6150 Sigh. I've already filed an update that removes the conflict from linux-firmware. I guess I can add the files back. (In reply to Bruno Wolff III from comment #0) > Description of problem: > file /lib/firmware/v4l-cx25840.fw from install of > ivtv-firmware-2:20080701-26.noarch conflicts with file from package > linux-firmware-20150410-46.gitec89525b.fc21.noarch That linux-firmware package was only in updates testing, and that particular update was dropped because of this very conflict. OK, I added the file back to linux-firmware. The rest of the firmware that was in ivtv-firmware isn't in the upstream linux-firmware repo so it remains unpackaged. Shouldn't linux-firmware then obsolete ivtv-firmware? Otherwise upgrades from F-21 and earlier might run into this conflict. (In reply to Nils Philippsen from comment #5) > Shouldn't linux-firmware then obsolete ivtv-firmware? Otherwise upgrades > from F-21 and earlier might run into this conflict. It's an option, but I'm not sure it is the correct one. The linux-firmware package is only providing a single file out of all the files that ivtv-firmware provided. Is it correct to Obsolete a package when you're only providing part of what the older one shipped? (In reply to Josh Boyer from comment #6) > (In reply to Nils Philippsen from comment #5) > > Shouldn't linux-firmware then obsolete ivtv-firmware? Otherwise upgrades > > from F-21 and earlier might run into this conflict. > > It's an option, but I'm not sure it is the correct one. The linux-firmware > package is only providing a single file out of all the files that > ivtv-firmware provided. Is it correct to Obsolete a package when you're > only providing part of what the older one shipped? With the ivtv-firmware being blocked from F22+, the alternative of removing the conflicting file from it won't work. Obsoleting ivtv-firmware at least makes the upgrade smooth :). Or is there a different way to make upgrades go smoothly? OK, I obsoleted ivtv-firmware. Thanks for catching this. but you said in Comment #6 > The linux-firmware package is only providing a single file out of all the files > that ivtv-firmware provided. v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg added to linux-firmware-20150521-52.git3161bfa4.fc22.noarch.rpm Can we have a revert until the unresponsive packager figure out how to add the missing files, that is v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211055#c9 v4l2-utils need to be required v4l-utils removed (In reply to Gilles J. Seguin from comment #10) > Can we have a revert until the unresponsive packager figure out how to add > the missing files, that is Which unresponsive maintainer? > v4l-cx2341x-enc.fw > v4l-cx2341x-dec.fw > v4l-cx2341x-init.mpg > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211055#c9 > > v4l2-utils need to be required > v4l-utils removed I'm not sure what you mean here. I see you've opened bug 1232773 to deal with whatever you're trying to accomplish anyway, so we'll work in that bug and close this one out. |