On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > firmware that's not tied to etch's release; Joss's is temporary, tied to > > the the development of "technical measures" that will allow firmware to be > > separated; Don's isn't an exception at all, and won't allow us to release > > etch on time without a further proposal; and Frederik's is an exception > > just for etch, in the same way the last reversion was an exception just > > for sarge: one that may well be repeated next time if nothing getsdone.
> Frederik's proposal is a common position from the kernel team and the release > team I am not happy that Frederik's proposal was presented this way after I specifically asked that this not be done. TTBOMK, the only members of the release team that were consulted before its publication were Andi and myself; and to the extent that I've endorsed this proposal, I was endorsing it as a suitable point of departure for further public discussion, not as an option that I was certain to rank first on any ballot. > It explicitly gives an exception for etch only, because we are confident > that the issue can be solved in the etch+1 timeframe. Who is confident of this, and why? I'm not confident of this at all; I'm not sure that the idea of forcing sourceless firmware out of main is even an idea that the majority of developers agree with, and Joey Hess has pointed out to us reasons why providing separate free/non-free install media might be a strategically poor use of our time in the *long term*, even if the work of splitting out this firmware proved manageable and there were sufficient volunteers to do this work. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
