[Hwdb-devel] debian hwdb

[Zenaan Harkness]

> > There are three classes of users:
> > 
> > 1) end users
> > 2) manufacturers
> > 3) driver developers (at least those independant from class 2)
> > 
> > A debian specific hwdb solves the problem for Debian users in category
> > 1) only.
> > 
> > How limited is that (rhetorical!)!?!
> 
> My first draft includes the following user DB user classes: Community
> (end users), Manufacturer (e.g. certifying entities), Developers (DDs).
> And this isn't limited, IMHO. And no problem to extend it further.

OK, I didn't see the three user classes - it's good to see that we're on
the same wavelength there.

I am however implementing a solution outside of Debian-only.

> A problem I recognize points in another direction. Since the DB schema I
> proposed already looks more complicated than the HWDBs currently in use
> by "the competition", I wonder if it is possibly already
> over-engineered.

Well, given the way I am choosing to approach it, designing a scheme and
software is kind of putting the cart before the horse::

a) I assume (long-term/ average) a few device submissions per week.

b) This is so small as to make designing automated submission software a
big overkill, at least initially.

c) Item b) is particularly the case for me, since I am supporting
mutliple kernels, os/ distributions, etc - ie. a large scope, so I'm
guessing the schema might, heaven forbid, get more complicated (or at
least broader) over time.

>  Unfortunately, I don't have much feedback at all, yet.
> And also, don't have that much spare time left.

Hey, no probs - these things take time to do well, and it's a job worth
doing well - and I was well prepared to take on the tasks of this
project-with-scope-as-I-see-it, before I sent out my initial proposal
email.

> It's even no problem to support other distribution releases besides
> Debian main (look at the schema that associates supported drivers with
> an actual release/distribution). But the question is: Shouldn't we focus
> on Debian? Other distributors may have other conceptions of how a HWDB
> should look like...

It is indeed the case that Debian should perhaps be focussed first and
foremost on Debian.

It is my strong opinion that it is in any individual distributions
long-term interest, wrt hardware, to see that the free software
community as a whole has a single submission point for manufacturers to
submit their information to (however much or little).

...
> > The problem for end users is knowing what's supported. They might be
> > using GNU/Linux, want to try Debian GNU/HURD, or be on *BSD.
> 
> What should be our goal? To advertise the >60 supported
> pseudo-architectures the NetBSD folks are so proud of? Furthermore, the

If a manufacturer, BSD distro, driver developer and/ or user wishes to
be so detailed in the hardware information they provide, I will be so
stoked I'll even send them a double smiley and five gold stars.

If I can get this level of real interest and support from some
not-insignificant proportion of any of the user classes (end users,
manufacturers, developers) - and I'm confident of doing so - I'll be
very happy with the success of the project.

> logical next step would be to include information about all kinds of
> operating systems. (When Debian currently considers some parts of "free"
> OSs/kernels non-free, why not also support Windows, SCO UnixWare etc.)

I shall be accepting all information that is specific to "free"
operating systems, drivers, etc, according to any of DFSG, GNU or OSI
definitions of "Free".

Remember: being inclusive and community-developing is my goal here. I
will persevere until I see a unified hardware front. That may involve
ongoing DB-sharing with existing distribution HWDB projects, to the
extent they are willing to cooperate.

> But feel free to contribute development resources or feedback. Maybe we
> come up with a solution everyone's comfortable with.

I realise that what I am proposing, and now launching is noticeably
more work than to simply provide a satisfactory solution for Debian
alone.

If it weren't obious by now, I feel quite strongly that this is a
particular area looking for a community-wide solution. Moreover,
unless solidly convinced of the technical or other reasons why it
doesn't make sense to keep doing what I'm doing, I shall continue
to put this project together.

If Debian (you guys) decide to produce a Debian-specific solution,
with funky automated submission and whatnot (perhaps more
expedient given the more limited focus of the specific Distribution,
Debian), that will certainly be an improvement over nothing, and
will surely assist with the os-, kernel- neutral solution I am
building.

I hadn't realised that Debian had a BOF on this very issue when
I sent out my initial email, and it was fortuitous timing - it
is always good to bring multiple points of view to bear on a
problem.

I have four offers of hosting for my project thus far, and given
no reasons not to start, I shall do so in the next few days.

The project, in summary, is as follows:

* Provide a single point of contact for hardware manufacturers,
resellers, end users, distsribution and driver developers to
submit hardware information regarding how hardware devices
relate to various free software projects, be they kernels,
operating systems/ distributions, drivers, support libraries,
etc.

* The key focii of the project are:
 - hardware manufacturers
 - single point of contact
 - free software (as per DFSG, FSF/GNU, OSI)
 - neutrality

cheers
zenaan