Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
The last part of the sentence is
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +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
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +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
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:41:05PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:06:14PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:41:05PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:13 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Perhaps I'm mis-reading the above. Which bit of the foundation documents
do you think would need overriding for the tech-ctte to rule on which
fix to take?
One might think that this is the situation: two alternative fixes for
the DFSG
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:50:23PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
In the kernel itself, yes. Provided that:
* the kernel framework for loading firmware is used for drivers
depending on non-free firmware, and
* that firmware is available in non-free via firmware-nonfree
What if the
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:17:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Doing so would be a violation of basic NMU policy.
The claim was, hey, nobody is stopping anyone from fixing it, if it's
not fixed, it's lame for people to complain, they
[NO CC, please]
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, eventually, all
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
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, 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
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
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, 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
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 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 Mon, Oct 20 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
Btw, I'm looking for supporters for a GR to stop this gross violation
of the SC. Any DDs who read this, please let me know if you're
interested.
Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
,
| http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
,
| http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
| General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
`
To get a special dispensation for
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.
Note that there is currently active
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
thing, to give time to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We need the relevant maintainers to be told your unwillingness to fix
this means we will not be
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
could also step up to the
42 matches
Mail list logo
