On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 03:22:13PM +0200, Shai Berger wrote: > On Sunday 04 October 2009 15:02:23 Shachar Shemesh wrote: > > Just one factual correction, if I may. > > > > Shai Berger wrote: > > > Debian then made a project > > > decision that firmware removal was a "best-effort" only issue. > > > > For Lenny! The decision was that it was too late to get all firmeware > > into non-free for Lenny, so non-free will be tolerated for this one > > release. > > > > Well, technically, yes. Except that > > A) The title of the chosen option in the vote was "Assume blobs comply with > GPL unless proven otherwise" (see > http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003#outcome). > > B) There were similar decisions made for the two previous releases (Sarge and > Etch); the vote on Lenny came only after the release managers applied the > same > principle to Lenny with no vote, and people cried foul (searching the list > for > the exact references is beyond me ATM). I think it fair to assume that, when > confronted with the same dilemma for Squeeze, the Debian project will take a > similar decision.
With Lenny much work has already been done on that front. For instance: adjust the installer to allow it to accept firmwares from a separate media (e.g.: an extra DoK available at install time). It also seems that (some) kernel maintainers are more aware of those issues and now we have a separate firmware/ tree in the kernel (added in the kernel version following the one included in Lenny). So hopefully that won't be the dillema for Squeeze. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [email protected] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [email protected] | | best ICQ# 16849754 | | friend _______________________________________________ Discussions mailing list [email protected] http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
