[Sound-open-firmware] Distribution of sof firmware and tplg files

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

>>>> It sounds like we are all aligned on this objective, albeit using
>>>> different repos. Are there any objections to ldc files in alsa-ucm-conf
>>>> providing a debug script can find the correct ldc file at runtime ?
>>>
>>> As a packager, I would like to have the debug info and tools separate.
>>> We can ask user to install the debug package and the extra tools on 
>>> demand.
>>
>> That's not possible in all cases to have an on-demand install. Yocto and
>> others in the embedded world create one image that needs to contain
>> everything at flash time. Granted there may be engineering and user
>> releases, but no everyone has the flexibility to do an rpm/apt install
>> from a command line.
> 
> But it's distro decision, isn't? If you bundle .ldc files forcefully, 
> it's not a good way in my eyes. We should pick it depending on the use. 
> Also, flash images are build for one specific device, so there's no 
> issue to bundle one .ldc with tools, if the packager decides. We manage 
> universal distros and the debug symbols should be optional and on demand.

Absolutely it's a distro decision, but your wording suggested otherwise.

I am sorry but I still see obscure points in your proposal:

1) one repository with all things linked through the annotate tags (release)
   - firmware binary
   - .ldc file for the firmware
   - topology binary
2) sof-debug package with all .ldc files and tools to extract the traces,
    other debug tools

<< why is this needed, if we already have 1)? As mentioned above, are we 
talking about a repo or a package, which are different things.

3) linux-firmware updates (without any special cases)

<< would you use this, or pick firmware from 1)? And how would you know 
if you need to take 'special cases' or not?

4) alsa-topology-conf updates (.m4 files)