On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:49:40PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that
would be different but I have not seen them doing this.
Great, so since there won't be any
[ This is a DRAFT, only intended to get feedback. Do not second yet! ]
Hi,
Personal opinion, not part of the GR
In the past few days, it's become obvious (see discussion in -devel) that
our existing control structures are not effective at enforcing rule #1
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:52:42PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
Traditionally, we have assumed good will, and specially cooperation from
the release team; DFSG violations were considered Release Critical bugs
and therefore every one of them would have to be fixed before release.
There are two
Robert Millan a écrit :
[ This is a DRAFT, only intended to get feedback. Do not second yet! ]
[snip]
Option 1 (set an upper limit)
~
The developers resolve that:
When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
60 days or more,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Interesting; Manoj's post isn't in the -vote archives on master. I wonder
why that is?
Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
,
|
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:47:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal
with the
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think that
removing SUNRPC support (and with it NIS, NFS and more) is a suitable
choice (unless we want to lose all users who haven't switched yet to
Ubuntu).
I have
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Option 1 (set an upper limit)
~
[move stuff to non-free after some time]
I believe this to be a bad idea.
Would we enforce this at the moment, Debian main would be empty, as
glibc (and consequently, all of it's r-build-deps)
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:48:16PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:47:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
[...]. Here you could modify source,
big deal, you won't be able to *build* the damn firmware. ever.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move
glibc to non-free (and with it, half of the archive to contrib)? It
would be faster to move
- Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ p
+ In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+ following rule is to be followed:
+ /p
+ p
+ When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+ Debian Free
Robert Millan a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think that
removing SUNRPC support (and with it NIS, NFS and more) is a suitable
choice (unless we want to lose all users who haven't switched yet
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
at least 2004 -- over four years ago! -- means we will continue to do
releases with non-free
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:02:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
No firmware
issue tagged etch-ignore is still present in lenny. IOW the kernel team
*is* doing good work in that area, and I see no reason to pressure them
more than useful.
This ain't true. Some of these bugs were known since
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move
glibc to non-free (and
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:27:14PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
BTW, as you seems really concerned by this kind of bug and think it is
easy, I offer you to do the job of getting this code relicensed. If in
60 days (the same delay as you proposed) it is not done, I will consider
that this bug
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:54:32PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
From what I can gather from your mails, it seems to me that you would
prefer to distribute a completely free operating system now, even if this
means that quite a few users will switch to something different. Yes,
this
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal
with the copyright holders to
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:40:14PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:02:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
No firmware
issue tagged etch-ignore is still present in lenny. IOW the kernel team
*is* doing good work in that area, and I see no reason to pressure them
more
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:42:25PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
The bug being more than 60 days
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
then as it's a long and slow work to
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:51:52PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
I think that'd be a really good solution. Debian users could continue using a
100% free system, and those who don't mind the blobs could use that
alternative.
It's not, and that's exactly Marc's point, the difference between
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:45:33PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:27:14PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
BTW, as you seems really concerned by this kind of bug and think it is
easy, I offer you to do the job of getting this code relicensed. If in
60 days (the same
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:48:16PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:47:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
then as it's a long
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard not support
the hardware for installation as acceptable.
I'm very glad that history has shown most developers disagree with you.
So I can upload an NMU right now that fixes the problem?
No, it's not OK. See
- Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not, and that's exactly Marc's point, the difference between
non-free and Debian will be blurry (if it's not already blurry enough),
and every single User will have non-free, whereas I believe quite a few
live without it right now.
That's
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:29:01PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:40:14PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:02:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
No firmware
issue tagged etch-ignore is still present in lenny. IOW the kernel team
*is*
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 10:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
at least 2004 -- over four years
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:22:18PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:42:25PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:30:57PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
and every single User will have non-free, whereas I believe quite a few
live without it right now.
That just means we're delluding ourselves. Every single user has non-free
already, as part of their linux-2.6 package and a few
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:36:03PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
| 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
| We will be guided by *the needs of our users* and the free software
| community. We will place their interests *first in our priorities*. We
| will support the needs of
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made
to violate a foundation
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 21:21 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard not support
the hardware for installation as acceptable.
I'm very glad that history has shown most developers disagree with you.
So I can upload an
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
that list?
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
redistributable firmware can belong in
Robert Millan a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:36:03PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
| 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
| We will be guided by *the needs of our users* and the free software
| community. We will place their interests *first in our priorities*. We
| will
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I see. So the previous statement that nobody is standing in the way
of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
That's nonsense. Uncoordinated NMUs are never acceptable for packages that
are in general actively
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 13:30 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
in the kernel is decreasing. So,
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I see. So the previous statement that nobody is standing in the way
of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
That's nonsense. Uncoordinated NMUs are
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
at time of release.
No matter what our principles are? Wow. Why are we not equally
committed
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
that list?
I would be
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:31 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
I knew I haven't quote enough parts of DFSG:
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do
not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
work, and rejecting anything simpler.
Ever hear of the Technical Committee?
signature.asc
Description: This is
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:23 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
work, and rejecting anything simpler.
Ever hear of the
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main,
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:36 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3
- Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
at time of release.
Really do have to
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
This is a technical dispute? Whether your packages need to comply with
the DFSG?
Isn't a dispute about alternative fixes for a bug a technical dispute?
I thought that was your point.
The violation itself is not a matter for the TC
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available
hardware at time of release.
That's news to me. Where is
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available
hardware at time of release.
That's news to me. Where is such a dedication required? Is it some
special reading of the
Ean Schuessler dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:35:55PM -0500]:
If I was going to suggest any kind of change to the Social Contract
at this point it would be:
6. Debian will obey the law
We acknowledge that our users live in real communities in the real
world. We will support the needs of
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:06 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
I worded that rather badly. You should imply within acceptable terms of
the DFSG here... in this case, putting stuff in the nonfree firmware
package in non-free is an acceptable solution.
Of course; that's an excellent solution. Right
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:06:29PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest
- Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umh, problem is the myriad of jurisdictions all over the world. This
would very easily become unfeasible. In the end, it ends up being each
user's responsability to obey the law the best way he can. Debian
helps as much as possible by only using
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:45 -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
I guess the question is, staying in the arena of 100% Free, what if
DRM technologies become pervasive in the United States and Europe and
it literally becomes illegal to have a computer without some
proprietary software in it? What if it
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think that
removing SUNRPC support (and with it NIS, NFS and more) is a suitable
choice (unless
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:39:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think
that removing SUNRPC support (and
58 matches
Mail list logo
