Created attachment 493060 [details] Proposed ebuild Broadcom devices need two separate firmware files. net-wireless/broadcom-sta provides the kernel driver and firmware for the WLAN (WiFi) part of the device. For the bluetooth part to work, but an in-tree kernel driver and a firmware file is needed. This ebuild builds on the work done in https://github.com/winterheart/broadcom-bt-firmware for providing the necessary firmware files. Without these files the bluetooth device is visible, but fails to pair with other devices and cannot establish a connection. I would volunteer to maintain this ebuild via proxy-maintainers. Therefore I am looking for a review of the ebuild and if acceptable for it to be added to the Gentoo tree.
Thank you for your contribution. I had a short look on the ebuild. Here a few ideas: * Please test the ebuild with repoman https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Repoman * fix license: see /usr/portage/licenses/ * please fix the header. (see /usr/portage/skel.ebuild and https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/eapi/) DESCRIPTION= should contain the supported chipsets or exact devices... How often does upstream update this driver? What is the package name in other distributions? Can you link it in http://repology.org/ for example?
Created attachment 493794 [details] Proposed ebuild (v2) Attached is an updated ebuild, which should fix the QA issues. Updates occur irregular, but are rare.
Created attachment 495114 [details] Proposed ebuild (v3) Based on TitanOfOld feedback on IRC in #gentoo-proxy-maint, attached is v3 of the proposed ebuild.
The upstream repository is very vague about the legal side of thinks. So an in-tree ebuild does not seem to be a good idea right now. I will mark this bug as RESOLVED/WONTFIX, no more action needed, just a bit of house keeping.
Created attachment 519920 [details] Alternative ebuild for broadcom firmwaree I also independently wrote an ebuild for this firmware, and was just about to submit it as a proposed new ebuild - but bugzilla pointed me here. I've attached mine, as it does a little bit more than the previous one here (namely uses savedconfig to just install the firmware you care about, which for most people is only a single file). Since broadcom bluetooth is useless without the firmware file, I disagree strongly with the decision not to keep an ebuild like this one in the tree - it can be quite hard for a normal user to find the information on what to do to get this file. Furthermore, "The upstream repository is very vague about the legal side of thinks (sic)" seems an odd comment - the git readme is quite clear that broadcom's licence applies, which they link too - so what is the lack of clarity referred to here? Given broadcom publish the files publicly to the windows update database, with the same licence as cited by the git source, I don't see any problems.
