From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add openfwwf-firmware.
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:04:30 -0500
Message-ID: <20161118210430.GA29593@jasmine>
References: <20161116212918.5dd43c22@centurylink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59493)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1c7qKq-0006er-2V
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:04:36 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1c7qKm-0000Gz-T6
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:04:36 -0500
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:41821)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1c7qKm-0000Fy-Of
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:04:32 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161116212918.5dd43c22@centurylink.net>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: bavier@member.fsf.org
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:29:18PM -0600, Eric Bavier wrote:
> Hello Guix,
> 
> We've had at least one person on IRC confirm that this firmware package
> worked for them, allowing them to use their wireless hardware.
> 
> Would it be appropriate to add this to %base-firmware?  The output is
> rather small.

How small?

Since they seem to work, I'd say they should be added.

> From c397f73d69326db24c211e4e2bda46e647d0e751 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Eric Bavier <bavier@member.fsf.org>
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:57:01 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add openfwwf-firmware.
> 
> * gnu/packages/firmware.scm (b43-tools, openfwwf-firmware): New
> variables.

> +(define-public b43-tools
> +  (let ((commit "8dce53297966b31b6c70a7a03c2433978dd9f288")
> +        (rev "1"))

How do we choose a commit?

> +    (package
> +      (name "b43-tools")
> +      (version (string-append "20140625-" rev "." (string-take commit 7)))

Is the timestamp some kind of upstream version string? If not, and there
is no upstream version naming, we should use 0.0.0, right?

> +         #:phases
> +         (let ((subdirs '("assembler" "disassembler"))) ;TODO: fwcutter

Can you expand the TODO comment?