Bug#642066: [bug #34331] Request to submit linux patches upstream
Update of bug #34331 (project gnewsense): Severity: 3 - Normal = 2 - Minor Status:None = Wont Fix Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #3: Pasting in my reply from the email thread running in parallel: To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Panayiotis Karabassis, Michał Masłowski, 642...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#642066: [bug #34331] Request to submit linux patches upstream On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:30:29 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: Disclaimer: I've not looked at this for a long time. On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 10:41 +, MichałMasłowski wrote: Follow-up Comment #1, bug #34331 (project gnewsense): The only non-branding and non-packaging patch in the gNewSense kernel for YeeLoong is made from http://dev.lemote.com/code/linux-loongson-community/. Reply to this item at: http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?34331 Just send the patches (or identify the upstream commits). I'm not going to go chasing around wikis and external bug trackers. I was under the impression all yeeloong specific patches were targeted to be merged in .38 and .39, so Debian should already have them in testing. As such I'm going to close the gNS bug. thanks, kk ___ Reply to this item at: http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?34331 ___ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111015-105321.sv73889.52...@savannah.nongnu.org
Bug#642066: [bug #34331] Request to submit linux patches upstream
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:30:29 +0100 Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote: Disclaimer: I've not looked at this for a long time. On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 10:41 +, MichałMasłowski wrote: Follow-up Comment #1, bug #34331 (project gnewsense): The only non-branding and non-packaging patch in the gNewSense kernel for YeeLoong is made from http://dev.lemote.com/code/linux-loongson-community/. Reply to this item at: http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?34331 Just send the patches (or identify the upstream commits). I'm not going to go chasing around wikis and external bug trackers. I was under the impression all yeeloong specific patches were targeted to be merged in .38 and .39, so Debian should already have them in testing. As such I'm going to close the gNS bug. thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS) http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gNewSense-users] Suitability of the Debian Squeeze (and later) Linux kernel for gNewSense. Was (no subject)
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:19:37 +0100 Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:51:16PM +0930, Karl Goetz wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:52:39 +0100 Michael Dorrington michael.dorring...@gmail.com wrote: [...] AFAICT, the Debian kernel complies with the DFSG (or is extremely close). However, it retains drivers that require a firmware in order to be functional and where no free firmware currently exists for them. So if you don't considered Debian to be a Free GNU/Linux distribution then, I think, you won't considered the Debian kernel to be suitable for gNewSense. Does this mean 'retained in tree', or is it the stuff with no free firmware in the non-free packages? Practically all modern peripherals run firmware, usually loaded from EEPROM or flash, and almost always non-free. So the question is not whether a driver relies on non-free firmware but whether that firmware is required to be installed in the host filesystem and loaded via the driver. Thanks for clarifying that, my wording was quite sloppy (sorry about that). The drivers included in upstream kernel releases that load non-free firmware are retained as part of the linux-2.6 source package and most of them are included in the binary packages. (Some are excluded due to quality considerations or because they rely on firmware embedded within the driver, which we remove.) If we were to package these drivers separately, they would belong in the 'contrib' archive section (free software with non-free or unpackaged dependencies). Since we do not, and since the kernel in general does not have non-free dependencies, these drivers remain in the 'main' archive section. Thanks for this clarification. kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gNewSense-users] Suitability of the Debian Squeeze (and later) Linux kernel for gNewSense. Was (no subject)
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:52:39 +0100 Michael Dorrington michael.dorring...@gmail.com wrote: Karl Goetz wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:42:41 -0300 Emiliano M. Rudenick emilianoruden...@gmail.com wrote: We don't have a free kernel in the archive yet, but you could easily install linux-libre of your own accord. thanks, kk The kernel that comes default in Debian Squeeze is completely free. The kernel produced by linux-libre, and the kernel produced by debian differ. This doesn't inherantly mean debians kernel is meant to be non-free, but it does mean there is some confusion between the projects which will have to be worked out. If we can use debians kernel unaltered thats fantastic, but i'm still trying to find someone who knows kernels (not me) to compare them and tell us if thats ok. thanks, kk Hi mike, thanks for the reply. AFAICT, the Debian kernel complies with the DFSG (or is extremely close). However, it retains drivers that require a firmware in order to be functional and where no free firmware currently exists for them. So if you don't considered Debian to be a Free GNU/Linux distribution then, I think, you won't considered the Debian kernel to be suitable for gNewSense. Does this mean 'retained in tree', or is it the stuff with no free firmware in the non-free packages? thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#559444: linux-2.6: sv_addr.agh has no source file
Package: linux-2.6 Version: linux-2.6-2.6.32~rc8 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 Hi, ./arch/cris/include/arch-v10/arch/sv_addr.agh appears to be generated from another file, which is not in the Linux source tree. Ref: http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00323 Ref: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-dev/2009-08/msg00188.html Thanks for investigating, kk -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.3 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30.7-libre-fshoppe1 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#559445: linux-2.6: multiple files in ./arch/ without source
Package: linux-2.6 Version: linux-2.6-2.6.32~rc8 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 Hi, Severity serious since all files must have their source. The following files seem to have been generated from a file which is not in the Linux source tree. ./arch/arm/mach-integrator/include/mach/bits.h ./arch/arm/mach-integrator/include/mach/platform.h ./arch/arm/include/asm/sizes.h ./arch/sh/include/asm/sizes.h thanks, kk -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.3 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30.7-libre-fshoppe1 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#559446: linux-2.6: two platform.h files without licence statements
Package: linux-2.6 Version: linux-2.6-2.6.32~rc8 Severity: normal Hi, Not sure if this should have been severity serious or not, so left at normal. The following files lack licence statements, and one of them lacks a copyright notice. It could be assumed they fall under the general licence of the kernel (gpl2), but considering the sourceless files floating around ./arch/arm I felt it was worth filing a bug report. ./arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/include/mach/platform.h ./arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/platform.h thanks, kk -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.3 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30.7-libre-fshoppe1 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#559446: ignore this bug
Hi, Now I'm awake I tend to agree with you. Sorry about the over-zealous bug filing, I'll try and keep them sane in future. thanks, kk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 15:42 +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new applicants are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for years with no consequences. It doesn't make me respect Debian very much. I am not a DD (yet), but all my packages were very strictly checked for all non-free stuff that I forgot to delete and the Social Contract is not a joke at all. This is why I am using Debian. Good luck climbing to DD :) Developers you have, are better than developers you don't have. The ones you have, make Debian what it is. If reality doesn't match the theory, change the theory, not the reality. I disagree - this is one of the reasons I am using Debian, because it strictly distinguishes between main and non-free. Agreed. If there are some non-free parts in the kernel, it can go to non-free immediatelly, so that users can use it now, but things in main should be DFSG free and that's how it should be. As I see it, the non-free section is here precisely for those cases, that intuition says the packages should be in Debian, nevertheless, they are not DFSG free. Problem is that there has been non-free content in Linux (eg the kernel) since before Sarge was released (3 years ago?). For both Sarge and etch a GR was passed saying we'll fix it up after this, and its still not fixed. Of course... this is my understanding only... Karl. Ondrej -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
