Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:29 AM, andre999 wrote: > ok. > My though was essentially that firmware is so close to hardware that its > actual free/non-free status shouldn't apply - we should treat it like > (almost) part of the hardware. > > As for the drivers, a little more distant from the hardware, they could be > in non-free, but I sincerely think that they should be on all installation > isos. hi, Not on ALL ISOS, because that way you don't respect ppl that really "respect" the free softwares and that don't want any closed software on their computer. hth
Re: [Mageia-dev] buildsystem => maintainers db link test
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:24:44 am Romain d'Alverny wrote: > Cool. Thanks to pterjan and boklm we now have a post on maintdb test > platform on each upload. That will help setting things up further. > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 20:45, Maarten Vanraes > > wrote: > > Op woensdag 23 maart 2011 20:32:42 schreef Michael Scherer: > >> ( nota : xml rpc interface could be a good idea to add later if not on > >> the roadmap ) > > Why not yes. > > > Personally, i want an app where i can log in, search a package, and grab > > / drop it (last packager could be shown if you have the info anyway...), > > and a link to the bugs of that package, and also a way to show my > > maintained packages. that's it. > > This whole thing may be a mashup of several apps in the end (profile > page for you, profile page for a package, for a team, etc.), among > which the maintdb is only one piece. > > Let's just build the minimal set needed for now for maintainer/package > association and build from that. > > Heard comments about having a more straight association between the > actual maintainer and the package (and not considering people pushing > a rebuild as a co-maintainer). Will see how to manage that. > > Any other point? > > Thanks! > > Romain Let's start to get this running. -- Thomas
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
JA Magallón a écrit : On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:41:18 -0400, andre999 wrote: Romain d'Alverny a écrit : On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 20:08, Anssi Hannula wrote: On 24.03.2011 19:35, Romain d'Alverny wrote: Summary (from http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy): * core: stuff that is not Free/Open Source according to OSI/FSF does not belong here. Not even closed-source stuff that we can redistribute. So if there is at this time, that's something to fix. Most of files in kernel-firmware (which is in core) are not OSI/FSF free (approximate list from 2010 [1]). There was a short thread about that [2] where I asked the question if they should be moved to non-free due to them not being OSI/FSF free, and tmb agreed, while pterjan disagreed (saying BSD without source code (where a portion of the firmware files in question fall) is eligible for core). [1] http://lists.mandriva.com/cooker/2010-01/msg00525.php [2] https://mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/20110115/002172.html Ah right, sorry for overlooking this. So what do we do? amend core inclusion definition for that? or move these to nonfree? (and at what cost?) topic for next Council meeting to decide? would you like to write a summary for this in http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=meeting:council_notes_2011_03_28#open_questions ? Romain fwiw, I think the best solution is to have an express policy to include such firmware in core. Without it, much hardware simply won't work. Firmware/drivers are essentially extensions to hardware, so that software can work with them. The hardware is changed, and firmware/drivers have to be changed to accommodate the hardware. These firmware/drivers provide an interface which allows (free) software to run. A practical solution, which doesn't hurt free software. The alternative is (free) software that doesn't run properly. my 2 cents :) Sincerely, I would be more than happy than nVidia drivers went to core, but I'm pragmatic. I can understand that moving only firmwares to core, and leaving nVidia, ATI and other closed source drivers in non-free can be a compromise solution. It's the difference between losing 100% functionality of an important piece of hardware/system (network, for example -now that I read the list in Anssi's mail, 80% of firmwares in non-free are network- o fiber-channel), or getting a not so performant system 'cause you dont have the binary drivers for your graphics card (and I'm not aware of any other binary driver so popular/needed, nVidia and ATI). So in short, there are three important pieces of software: - net/fc/radeon firmwares, mandatory for some free drivers - nVidia/ATI binary drivers, wanted but optional, not mandatory Firmwares and drivers, they are different beasts for me. And anyways, you already have firmwares in your hardware and in your kernel which source you can't look at... And cherry picking firmwares from standard kernel source looks like madness for me. ok. My though was essentially that firmware is so close to hardware that its actual free/non-free status shouldn't apply - we should treat it like (almost) part of the hardware. As for the drivers, a little more distant from the hardware, they could be in non-free, but I sincerely think that they should be on all installation isos. That is, on installing from an iso, all hardware-related functions should (ideally) be fully functional, even if it requires using non-free drivers. The lack of some drivers (or components of drivers) can render a system technically functional, but with important dysfunctions, simply because the required drivers were not available on installation. That should not happen. The kernel, firmware and drivers, built on the hardware, provide a platform on which the application software runs. True, it is better if drivers are open source, but in my view, it is application software where open source is the most important. -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:41:18 -0400, andre999 wrote: > Romain d'Alverny a écrit : > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 20:08, Anssi Hannula wrote: > >> On 24.03.2011 19:35, Romain d'Alverny wrote: > >>> Summary (from http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy): > >>> * core: stuff that is not Free/Open Source according to OSI/FSF does > >>> not belong here. Not even closed-source stuff that we can > >>> redistribute. So if there is at this time, that's something to fix. > >> > >> Most of files in kernel-firmware (which is in core) are not OSI/FSF free > >> (approximate list from 2010 [1]). There was a short thread about that > >> [2] where I asked the question if they should be moved to non-free due > >> to them not being OSI/FSF free, and tmb agreed, while pterjan disagreed > >> (saying BSD without source code (where a portion of the firmware files > >> in question fall) is eligible for core). > >> > >> [1] http://lists.mandriva.com/cooker/2010-01/msg00525.php > >> [2] https://mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/20110115/002172.html > > > > Ah right, sorry for overlooking this. > > > > So what do we do? amend core inclusion definition for that? or move > > these to nonfree? (and at what cost?) topic for next Council meeting > > to decide? would you like to write a summary for this in > > http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=meeting:council_notes_2011_03_28#open_questions > > ? > > > > Romain > > fwiw, I think the best solution is to have an express policy to include > such firmware in core. > Without it, much hardware simply won't work. Firmware/drivers are > essentially extensions to hardware, so that software can work with them. > The hardware is changed, and firmware/drivers have to be changed to > accommodate the hardware. > These firmware/drivers provide an interface which allows (free) software > to run. > A practical solution, which doesn't hurt free software. > The alternative is (free) software that doesn't run properly. > > my 2 cents :) Sincerely, I would be more than happy than nVidia drivers went to core, but I'm pragmatic. I can understand that moving only firmwares to core, and leaving nVidia, ATI and other closed source drivers in non-free can be a compromise solution. It's the difference between losing 100% functionality of an important piece of hardware/system (network, for example -now that I read the list in Anssi's mail, 80% of firmwares in non-free are network- o fiber-channel), or getting a not so performant system 'cause you dont have the binary drivers for your graphics card (and I'm not aware of any other binary driver so popular/needed, nVidia and ATI). So in short, there are three important pieces of software: - net/fc/radeon firmwares, mandatory for some free drivers - nVidia/ATI binary drivers, wanted but optional, not mandatory Firmwares and drivers, they are different beasts for me. And anyways, you already have firmwares in your hardware and in your kernel which source you can't look at... And cherry picking firmwares from standard kernel source looks like madness for me. -- J.A. Magallon \ Software is like sex: \ It's better when it's free
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Romain d'Alverny a écrit : On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 20:08, Anssi Hannula wrote: On 24.03.2011 19:35, Romain d'Alverny wrote: Summary (from http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy): * core: stuff that is not Free/Open Source according to OSI/FSF does not belong here. Not even closed-source stuff that we can redistribute. So if there is at this time, that's something to fix. Most of files in kernel-firmware (which is in core) are not OSI/FSF free (approximate list from 2010 [1]). There was a short thread about that [2] where I asked the question if they should be moved to non-free due to them not being OSI/FSF free, and tmb agreed, while pterjan disagreed (saying BSD without source code (where a portion of the firmware files in question fall) is eligible for core). [1] http://lists.mandriva.com/cooker/2010-01/msg00525.php [2] https://mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/20110115/002172.html Ah right, sorry for overlooking this. So what do we do? amend core inclusion definition for that? or move these to nonfree? (and at what cost?) topic for next Council meeting to decide? would you like to write a summary for this in http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=meeting:council_notes_2011_03_28#open_questions ? Romain fwiw, I think the best solution is to have an express policy to include such firmware in core. Without it, much hardware simply won't work. Firmware/drivers are essentially extensions to hardware, so that software can work with them. The hardware is changed, and firmware/drivers have to be changed to accommodate the hardware. These firmware/drivers provide an interface which allows (free) software to run. A practical solution, which doesn't hurt free software. The alternative is (free) software that doesn't run properly. my 2 cents :) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 22:09:50 schreef Dexter Morgan: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Maarten Vanraes > > wrote: > > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 20:55:47 schreef Ahmad Samir: > >> On 24 March 2011 21:36, Maarten Vanraes wrote: > >> > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny: > >> >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote: > >> >> > Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since > >> >> > 2009.1 on Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed > >> >> > with coexistence in mind, so there shouldn't be any unsolvable > >> >> > issues. > >> >> > >> >> Maybe it did coexist well at a significant cost on the packaging > >> >> side? (time, packaging compromises) and maybe the situation isn't > >> >> exactly the same as then? > >> >> > >> >> > This is exactly what I would call a reasonable factual > >> >> > argumentation. > >> >> > >> >> But an argument is not going to make anyone progress one way or the > >> >> other here obviously. If there are fears, then provide facts to > >> >> counter them (no argument, but facts). > >> >> > >> >> You propose to add TDE in the repository. After this discussion, the > >> >> next step is you to first package TDE, build and test and > >> >> see/demonstrate how it goes, regarding at least these 5 points > >> >> (summarized from above) before an integration is considered: > >> >> 1. no conflict on files > >> >> 2. install in %_prefix (not in /opt) > >> >> 3. no duplicate software name (do not confuse user to decide between > >> >> tde-k3b and k3b for instance - or find a realistic workaround use > >> >> case). > >> >> 4. at this point, no apps outside of the TDE project should require > >> >> TDE 5. committed maintainers > >> >> > >> >> Romain > >> > > >> > also promising to maintain qt3 as long as it's needed and here, the > >> > same thing, not conflicting with qt4 in any way > >> > >> How could a packager propose to maintain qt3 when it's been dead > >> upstream for years? so no upstream support/patches/whatever... > > > > yes, it would be a huge amount of work; and that's exactly the reason i > > proposed to OP to just wait until it's qt4. > > this will just remove the qt3 issue bug all the other issues will > still be valid. i'm hoping that by that time, that some apps will be the KDE4 apps or really their own apps. And in any case, it's a lot less work. The way i see it, it's seems there's: A) alot of work to maintain this B) quite some potential issues C) seemingly not alot of benefits B is the main point here, if they are dedicated to it, and can give good points on B. then sure, why not. IF they can also handle A. but don't get me wrong, there is not much chance of me actually using TDE.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
Frank Griffin a écrit : On 03/24/2011 04:37 PM, Thomas Backlund wrote: I'm not sure it's broken. Realtek is known to have somewhat crappy NICs that can tend to lock up in a "middle state" if a driver probe comes too fast, and then they dont react to any link or driver loading anymore. One way that might help is to power off the computer, disconnect it from power _and_ disconnect the network cables, wait a few minutes, connect everything again and try again. OK. I *did* try a cold boot, but I didn't go quite that far. I'll try this, but probably not till Monday. Odd, though, that I've never had a whisper of trouble from this NIC in the years since I built this machine. Thanks for the suggestion. I had a similar problem from time to time on a system with an 8139c nic a while back. The suggested solution worked. (It was a common solution for similar problems at the time.) Sometimes unplugging/replugging the data cable a few times helps. It might be more the connected circuits than the nic itself. Static charges, apparently. -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
Robert Xu a écrit : On Mar 23, 2011, at 17:28, Dexter Morgan wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Olivier Blin wrote: Dexter Morgan writes: I certainly don't have the web space and bandwidth resources for a repository and frankly I joined Mageia as a packager precisely because I thought Mageia would finally make confusing and conflicting third party repos (like Mandriva has) obsolete. We can host repositories for you, if Mageia is unwilling to accept them - you could make a kde3 rpm that adds the necessary sources to use. Or, Mageia could make an official kde3 repository that is disabled by default but can be enabled on installer/rpmdrake. I'm not the expert at this, though :-/ that's mageia dev decisions. no a special repo hosted by mageia is not a good idea, we will not start to do repo for all that way. This need to be external, independant repository. If you can host it this would be perfect. This would be a mess, like previously with Mandriva and its few third-party repositories with various quality level, where the distro packaging policy can't be enforced. This is bad for end-users. Why not include TrinityDE in Mageia repos? If not conflicting with KDE4, not having similar provides, and not even installed by default, it seems ok to include it in the distro. we will face too many pbs simple question: we provide k3b ( kde apps ) trinity provide k3b ( kde3 apps ) Uh, no, k3b-trinity or k3b-kde3 files are similar ( or named the same ), how users will distinguish No.. That's the purpose of /opt/kde3 the version it wants? how to deal with conflicts ? What conflicts? We're installing in a seperate prefix. Also, the RPM requires, provides, conflicts, etc have long been fixed, no? It might be better to use /usr/tde/kde3/ instead of /opt/kde3/ (which is a bit questionable according to fs guidelines). (assuming of course that /usr/tde/ is used for trinity.) That way it is unquestionably linked to trinity, and can be easily retired without fear of conflict when trinity migration is complete. Maybe the same could be done for qt3-devel requirements ? (Of course that would be more work for trinity people.) It is better to use trinity-kde3 for requires, as someone else suggested. (And similarly trinity-qt3-devel.) my 2 cents :) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Maarten Vanraes wrote: > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 20:55:47 schreef Ahmad Samir: >> On 24 March 2011 21:36, Maarten Vanraes wrote: >> > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny: >> >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote: >> >> > Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1 >> >> > on Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed with >> >> > coexistence in mind, so there shouldn't be any unsolvable issues. >> >> >> >> Maybe it did coexist well at a significant cost on the packaging side? >> >> (time, packaging compromises) and maybe the situation isn't exactly >> >> the same as then? >> >> >> >> > This is exactly what I would call a reasonable factual argumentation. >> >> >> >> But an argument is not going to make anyone progress one way or the >> >> other here obviously. If there are fears, then provide facts to >> >> counter them (no argument, but facts). >> >> >> >> You propose to add TDE in the repository. After this discussion, the >> >> next step is you to first package TDE, build and test and >> >> see/demonstrate how it goes, regarding at least these 5 points >> >> (summarized from above) before an integration is considered: >> >> 1. no conflict on files >> >> 2. install in %_prefix (not in /opt) >> >> 3. no duplicate software name (do not confuse user to decide between >> >> tde-k3b and k3b for instance - or find a realistic workaround use >> >> case). >> >> 4. at this point, no apps outside of the TDE project should require TDE >> >> 5. committed maintainers >> >> >> >> Romain >> > >> > also promising to maintain qt3 as long as it's needed and here, the same >> > thing, not conflicting with qt4 in any way >> >> How could a packager propose to maintain qt3 when it's been dead >> upstream for years? so no upstream support/patches/whatever... > > yes, it would be a huge amount of work; and that's exactly the reason i > proposed to OP to just wait until it's qt4. > this will just remove the qt3 issue bug all the other issues will still be valid.
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 20:55:47 schreef Ahmad Samir: > On 24 March 2011 21:36, Maarten Vanraes wrote: > > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny: > >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote: > >> > Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1 > >> > on Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed with > >> > coexistence in mind, so there shouldn't be any unsolvable issues. > >> > >> Maybe it did coexist well at a significant cost on the packaging side? > >> (time, packaging compromises) and maybe the situation isn't exactly > >> the same as then? > >> > >> > This is exactly what I would call a reasonable factual argumentation. > >> > >> But an argument is not going to make anyone progress one way or the > >> other here obviously. If there are fears, then provide facts to > >> counter them (no argument, but facts). > >> > >> You propose to add TDE in the repository. After this discussion, the > >> next step is you to first package TDE, build and test and > >> see/demonstrate how it goes, regarding at least these 5 points > >> (summarized from above) before an integration is considered: > >> 1. no conflict on files > >> 2. install in %_prefix (not in /opt) > >> 3. no duplicate software name (do not confuse user to decide between > >> tde-k3b and k3b for instance - or find a realistic workaround use > >> case). > >> 4. at this point, no apps outside of the TDE project should require TDE > >> 5. committed maintainers > >> > >> Romain > > > > also promising to maintain qt3 as long as it's needed and here, the same > > thing, not conflicting with qt4 in any way > > How could a packager propose to maintain qt3 when it's been dead > upstream for years? so no upstream support/patches/whatever... yes, it would be a huge amount of work; and that's exactly the reason i proposed to OP to just wait until it's qt4.
Re: [Mageia-dev] vbox/vboxadditions conflicts question
Frank Griffin a écrit : On 03/24/2011 12:41 PM, andre999 wrote: Frank Griffin a écrit : Is there an rpm or urpmq query that will highlight conflicts between installed packages on a system ? For example, if I installed dkms-virtualbox and then installed dkms-vboxadditions with --force, is there a query which would report that these two are in conflict ? good idea. Also, it seems that when a conflict is reported, it should list the applications (and versions) it finds to be in conflict. It is _really_ frustrating to have these anonymous conflicts, when rpm/urpm must know what it is finding in conflict. I was hoping this was already possible. If it's not, I'll enter an enhancement request. Could some rpm/urpmq guru confirm one way or the other, please ? I was thinking of installs in rpmdrake (under mdv). Sometimes it says that a package can't be installed -- if I remember correctly, because of conflicts -- but doesn't give the blocker. If I try to install the package directly (from console or Nautilus) often I get more info. Sometimes I have found circular depends/conflicts, so I have had to use --force to work around the problem. If it is an upgrade, sometimes uninstalling the old package (with rpmdrake), then installing the new, works. (But it is not always possible to uninstall without uninstalling a lot of other packages.) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
On 03/24/2011 04:37 PM, Thomas Backlund wrote: I'm not sure it's broken. Realtek is known to have somewhat crappy NICs that can tend to lock up in a "middle state" if a driver probe comes too fast, and then they dont react to any link or driver loading anymore. One way that might help is to power off the computer, disconnect it from power _and_ disconnect the network cables, wait a few minutes, connect everything again and try again. OK. I *did* try a cold boot, but I didn't go quite that far. I'll try this, but probably not till Monday. Odd, though, that I've never had a whisper of trouble from this NIC in the years since I built this machine. Thanks for the suggestion.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
Frank Griffin skrev 24.3.2011 15:21: On 03/24/2011 08:02 AM, Frank Griffin wrote: I'll do that today. I've looked in older logs, and I find places where the kernel puts out the "unable to load firmware" message, but then gets link beat anyway. Well, I've never been a believer in coincidence, but I've booted the old kernel (2.37.4) as well as 2009.1 and Knoppix, and it appears that the onboard r8169 NIC just happened to pick the reboot to 2.38 to break. Nobody sees a link beat on it. A NIC which just happens to give up the ghost coincidentally with a reboot would have been pretty far down my list of possibilities. Sorry for the noise. I'm not sure it's broken. Realtek is known to have somewhat crappy NICs that can tend to lock up in a "middle state" if a driver probe comes too fast, and then they dont react to any link or driver loading anymore. One way that might help is to power off the computer, disconnect it from power _and_ disconnect the network cables, wait a few minutes, connect everything again and try again. On one system I had to install Windows and disable/enable the nic and it got back to normal :( I also have had a system with 2 r8169 nics that when setup in teaming/bonding, nic2 will grab the mac address from nic1, and screw up udev nic assignments making the system boot up without lan :( -- Thomas
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 20:08, Anssi Hannula wrote: > On 24.03.2011 19:35, Romain d'Alverny wrote: >> Summary (from http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy): >> * core: stuff that is not Free/Open Source according to OSI/FSF does >> not belong here. Not even closed-source stuff that we can >> redistribute. So if there is at this time, that's something to fix. > > Most of files in kernel-firmware (which is in core) are not OSI/FSF free > (approximate list from 2010 [1]). There was a short thread about that > [2] where I asked the question if they should be moved to non-free due > to them not being OSI/FSF free, and tmb agreed, while pterjan disagreed > (saying BSD without source code (where a portion of the firmware files > in question fall) is eligible for core). > > [1] http://lists.mandriva.com/cooker/2010-01/msg00525.php > [2] https://mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/20110115/002172.html Ah right, sorry for overlooking this. So what do we do? amend core inclusion definition for that? or move these to nonfree? (and at what cost?) topic for next Council meeting to decide? would you like to write a summary for this in http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=meeting:council_notes_2011_03_28#open_questions ? Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Romain d'Alverny a écrit : On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:39, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We should rather stress the point. We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free. Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as that those two media are available from the network without discrimination. exactly. Adding these non-free drivers -- for which a reliable free equivalent doesn't exist -- would take a very small part of the dvd, which would thus remain essentially free. (We could even call it "essentially free, with some proprietary drivers." This approach would remove the need to produce another iso to fill the gap caused by missing drivers. And options during installation will allow purists to avoid installing any non-free drivers -- at the expense of having a system that doesn't fully function, of course. But that is their legitimate choice. At the same time, those wanting their system to work "out of the box" will be satisfied as well. So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition too). And that would make the case for a consistent installing experience that, no matter you're doing an exclusively ISO-based install or a network-based install, you get through the same steps (with a consistent opt-in or opt-out, clearly explained). It would only happen that non-free media is available locally if asked for. good point. This will make support easier as well. The alternative, if we're not to mix things on the static media, is to have distinct ISOs: free and nonfree/tainted ones. Times the format: DVD/CD/arch/USB through which we would have to decide to ease: building, qa and distribution (we will have to choose a default one to provide to visitors on the download page for instance). I think we should avoid unnecessary complexity. As well, a single dvd (for each of 32 & 64 bit) will avoid the problem of users downloading the free dvd only to find that they need the missing drivers. But those really concerned could easily produce a non-official dvd without the few non-free drivers. another 2 cents :) Romain -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
On 24 March 2011 21:36, Maarten Vanraes wrote: > Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny: >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote: >> > Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1 on >> > Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed with coexistence in >> > mind, so there shouldn't be any unsolvable issues. >> >> Maybe it did coexist well at a significant cost on the packaging side? >> (time, packaging compromises) and maybe the situation isn't exactly >> the same as then? >> >> > This is exactly what I would call a reasonable factual argumentation. >> >> But an argument is not going to make anyone progress one way or the >> other here obviously. If there are fears, then provide facts to >> counter them (no argument, but facts). >> >> You propose to add TDE in the repository. After this discussion, the >> next step is you to first package TDE, build and test and >> see/demonstrate how it goes, regarding at least these 5 points >> (summarized from above) before an integration is considered: >> 1. no conflict on files >> 2. install in %_prefix (not in /opt) >> 3. no duplicate software name (do not confuse user to decide between >> tde-k3b and k3b for instance - or find a realistic workaround use >> case). >> 4. at this point, no apps outside of the TDE project should require TDE >> 5. committed maintainers >> >> Romain > > also promising to maintain qt3 as long as it's needed and here, the same > thing, not conflicting with qt4 in any way > How could a packager propose to maintain qt3 when it's been dead upstream for years? so no upstream support/patches/whatever... -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 16:22:15 schreef Ahmad Samir: > On 24 March 2011 11:56, Olivier Blin wrote: > > nicolas vigier writes: > >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote: > >>> As I reiterate, Trinity does not interfere with KDE4 in any way, if > >>> you keep /opt/kde3 > >> > >> Are you sure ? > >> > >> For libs installed in /opt/kde3/lib, rpm find-provides will add the > >> provides for the libs on the packages. When an other package require > >> this library, it will give the choice to install the Trinity package and > >> some people will do it. > >> > >> Then there is two options : > >> - /opt/kde3/lib is not in ld.so.conf, and the programs using this lib > >>will not run > >> - /opt/kde3/lib is in ld.so.conf, so the programs using this lib will > >>run, but we can have two versions of the lib installed, one in > >> /usr/lib and one in /opt/kde3/lib, and we don't know which one will be > >> used, so we can see various strange problems. > > > > This should not be an issue if the libraries from Trinity and KDE4 have > > different majors > > > > -- > > Olivier Blin - blino > > No guarantees on that point... you never know when the major of a lib > is going to change, and there're hundreds of libs in a DE... It is a lot of work, but i have no qualms if the people maintain both qt3 and TDE and can guarantee no breakage at any point in time, and a TDE policy that needs to be welltested before introducing. if possible, also a priority preference (like it was done with systemd)
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 14:10:39 schreef Romain d'Alverny: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote: > > Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1 on > > Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed with coexistence in > > mind, so there shouldn't be any unsolvable issues. > > Maybe it did coexist well at a significant cost on the packaging side? > (time, packaging compromises) and maybe the situation isn't exactly > the same as then? > > > This is exactly what I would call a reasonable factual argumentation. > > But an argument is not going to make anyone progress one way or the > other here obviously. If there are fears, then provide facts to > counter them (no argument, but facts). > > You propose to add TDE in the repository. After this discussion, the > next step is you to first package TDE, build and test and > see/demonstrate how it goes, regarding at least these 5 points > (summarized from above) before an integration is considered: > 1. no conflict on files > 2. install in %_prefix (not in /opt) > 3. no duplicate software name (do not confuse user to decide between > tde-k3b and k3b for instance - or find a realistic workaround use > case). > 4. at this point, no apps outside of the TDE project should require TDE > 5. committed maintainers > > Romain also promising to maintain qt3 as long as it's needed and here, the same thing, not conflicting with qt4 in any way
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Op donderdag 24 maart 2011 11:18:03 schreef Olivier Blin: > Wolfgang Bornath writes: > >>> It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the > >>> firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been > >>> changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed > >>> yet). > >> > >> They were also on the PowerPack images, and they are installed > >> automatically over a network install > > > > But to be installed via network you have to have a network connection > > first, n'est-ce pas? > > That's what this thread is about. > > It is now also about "in which media should we include non-free > packages?" :) no, about if they are really non-free... stuff released as BSD is free in my book. if they don't comply, they could be sued for all i care, but it's still free.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/3/24 Olivier Blin: Thorsten van Lil writes: Am 24.03.2011 09:57, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morganwrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samirwrote: Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, and this question is i think interesting. A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not install them? I think the majority of the users don't care that much about proprietary issues, they just need them for using there wireless card or graphic card. Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part of the DVD. :) Yep, it could just be an option. The desktop selection step seems to be a good place in the installer to include it, it is visible enough, and right before packages installation. Though it would have to be renamed. We could have a checkbox "Install proprietary drivers if needed (non-free software)", ticked by default. perfect solution :) Are you aware that this would mean that Mageia is not a "free distribution" as planned? No matter how you phrase the question and how many checkboxes a user would have to check, if non-free contents is included in an ISO it is not a free ISO anymore. Mageia the distribution includes non-free software. We are talking about what we include on the ISO. If users want to exclude installing any non-free packages, this check-box solution solves the problem nicely. So users that want to ensure that their installation works "out of the box" will be satisfied. And purists that don't mind some things not working, can avoid installing non-free drivers. Sounds like a win-win solution to me :) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On 24.03.2011 19:35, Romain d'Alverny wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 17:45, Michael Scherer wrote: >> But my issue is not about non-free firmwares and those who use them or >> not, but about the gradual move to non-free packages on the free dvd iso >> ( http://netsplit.com/2006/11/27/slippery-slopes/ ). >> >> When I started at Mandrake Linux, there was no non-free repository. Then >> one day, non-free was created, and then soon, it was activated by >> default for the free version. Then I opened this bug, >> https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=40033 , who took 2 years to be >> fixed. And what I just see is yet another push to bury a little bit more >> values I care. > > Please be more explicit about the values here then. So far I don't see > no push. We're discussing this. Speaking of values, is this going > against the project values and announcement so far? (even in a > slippery way) > > Obviously, the very imperfect nature of free/non-free semantics does > not help at all here. > > Summary (from http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy): > * core: stuff that is not Free/Open Source according to OSI/FSF does > not belong here. Not even closed-source stuff that we can > redistribute. So if there is at this time, that's something to fix. Most of files in kernel-firmware (which is in core) are not OSI/FSF free (approximate list from 2010 [1]). There was a short thread about that [2] where I asked the question if they should be moved to non-free due to them not being OSI/FSF free, and tmb agreed, while pterjan disagreed (saying BSD without source code (where a portion of the firmware files in question fall) is eligible for core). [1] http://lists.mandriva.com/cooker/2010-01/msg00525.php [2] https://mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/20110115/002172.html > * nonfree: what does not qualify for core that we can still > redistribute; includes closed-source, proprietary, binaries and blobs. > * tainted: what could be in core or nonfree but bears more risks > (software patents, most likely for now). > > Now, for what we distribute in printed medias (DVD/CD for now), the > initial point was to provide some necessary bits from nonfree along > with core so that a local install can work with some specific hardware > (network, video). > > That does not prevent from shipping CD/DVD that only bear core on it I > believe? (what we used to do with Free at MDV). > > And that does not prevent from shipping too CD/DVD that bears more > than that (stuff located in nonfree), to ease setup for some users (or > even make a LiveCD usable). > > Is there a problem here? which one? -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
'Twas brillig, and Frank Griffin at 24/03/11 15:12 did gyre and gimble: > But that doesn't cover the case of booting from a 2009.1 partition which > has worked with this NIC before. That partition would have the same > kernel and /lib/firmware that worked the last time, no ? Ahh yes, that's true... sounds like you were right with the diagnosis :( Col -- Colin Guthrie mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Ahmad Samir a écrit : On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir wrote: Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, and this question is i think interesting. It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed yet). Whatever it's called, it doesn't make much practical sense to exclude important drivers from the dvd. Sure, ideological correctness could prevail, but I see no problem adding a non-free directory including only important drivers, such as video, wi-fi. Note that some distros are reported to put such drivers in their main free repository, which could also be done. Let's face it, one of the best ways to discourage new (Mageia) Linux users is to have an iso that doesn't work "out of the box". Even experienced users/programmers find that frustrating -- how do you think that ordinary users will respond ? So I think that there should be an explicit policy to include, on all official isos, drivers for all (common) hardware. If there is no reliable "free" driver available, so include non-free. Whether such drivers are put in a non-free repository is another question. Personally I'd just put them in core until a reliable free driver becomes available, but that isn't critical to a working system. my 2 cents :) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] buildsystem => maintainers db link test
Cool. Thanks to pterjan and boklm we now have a post on maintdb test platform on each upload. That will help setting things up further. On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 20:45, Maarten Vanraes wrote: > Op woensdag 23 maart 2011 20:32:42 schreef Michael Scherer: >> ( nota : xml rpc interface could be a good idea to add later if not on >> the roadmap ) Why not yes. > Personally, i want an app where i can log in, search a package, and grab / > drop it (last packager could be shown if you have the info anyway...), and a > link to the bugs of that package, and also a way to show my maintained > packages. that's it. This whole thing may be a mashup of several apps in the end (profile page for you, profile page for a package, for a team, etc.), among which the maintdb is only one piece. Let's just build the minimal set needed for now for maintainer/package association and build from that. Heard comments about having a more straight association between the actual maintainer and the package (and not considering people pushing a rebuild as a co-maintainer). Will see how to manage that. Any other point? Thanks! Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 17:45, Michael Scherer wrote: > But my issue is not about non-free firmwares and those who use them or > not, but about the gradual move to non-free packages on the free dvd iso > ( http://netsplit.com/2006/11/27/slippery-slopes/ ). > > When I started at Mandrake Linux, there was no non-free repository. Then > one day, non-free was created, and then soon, it was activated by > default for the free version. Then I opened this bug, > https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=40033 , who took 2 years to be > fixed. And what I just see is yet another push to bury a little bit more > values I care. Please be more explicit about the values here then. So far I don't see no push. We're discussing this. Speaking of values, is this going against the project values and announcement so far? (even in a slippery way) Obviously, the very imperfect nature of free/non-free semantics does not help at all here. Summary (from http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy): * core: stuff that is not Free/Open Source according to OSI/FSF does not belong here. Not even closed-source stuff that we can redistribute. So if there is at this time, that's something to fix. * nonfree: what does not qualify for core that we can still redistribute; includes closed-source, proprietary, binaries and blobs. * tainted: what could be in core or nonfree but bears more risks (software patents, most likely for now). Now, for what we distribute in printed medias (DVD/CD for now), the initial point was to provide some necessary bits from nonfree along with core so that a local install can work with some specific hardware (network, video). That does not prevent from shipping CD/DVD that only bear core on it I believe? (what we used to do with Free at MDV). And that does not prevent from shipping too CD/DVD that bears more than that (stuff located in nonfree), to ease setup for some users (or even make a LiveCD usable). Is there a problem here? which one? Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] vbox/vboxadditions conflicts question
On 03/24/2011 12:41 PM, andre999 wrote: Frank Griffin a écrit : Is there an rpm or urpmq query that will highlight conflicts between installed packages on a system ? For example, if I installed dkms-virtualbox and then installed dkms-vboxadditions with --force, is there a query which would report that these two are in conflict ? good idea. Also, it seems that when a conflict is reported, it should list the applications (and versions) it finds to be in conflict. It is _really_ frustrating to have these anonymous conflicts, when rpm/urpm must know what it is finding in conflict. I was hoping this was already possible. If it's not, I'll enter an enhancement request. Could some rpm/urpmq guru confirm one way or the other, please ?
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 14:24 +0200, Anssi Hannula a écrit : > On 24.03.2011 12:53, Michael Scherer wrote: > > Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Thorsten van Lil a écrit : > >> Am 24.03.2011 09:57, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: > >>> 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: > On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir > > wrote: > >> > >> Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? > > > > No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, > > and this question is i think interesting. > > > >>> A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free > >>> "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. > >>> > >> > >> What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not > >> install them? > >> I think the majority of the users don't care that much about proprietary > >> issues, they just need them for using there wireless card or graphic > >> card. Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part of the DVD. :) > > > > Well, personally, then I would just continue to use Fedora or others > > distribution on my computers, and keep Mageia just for the servers of > > the project. > > Fedora includes non-free firmware both in repo and medias, so why prefer > that? I know, I likely use them for my wifi card (Atheros AR5008) and also use external ones for my dvb card ( aver-tv red hd+ ), and my webcam ( iSight ). But my issue is not about non-free firmwares and those who use them or not, but about the gradual move to non-free packages on the free dvd iso ( http://netsplit.com/2006/11/27/slippery-slopes/ ). When I started at Mandrake Linux, there was no non-free repository. Then one day, non-free was created, and then soon, it was activated by default for the free version. Then I opened this bug, https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=40033 , who took 2 years to be fixed. And what I just see is yet another push to bury a little bit more values I care. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] vbox/vboxadditions conflicts question
Frank Griffin a écrit : On 03/23/2011 08:45 AM, Olivier Blin wrote: Don't you have x11 packages for vbox guest installed? That was it, thanks. Apparently virtualbox-additions and the x11 package were forced on during my post-installation processing. Is there an rpm or urpmq query that will highlight conflicts between installed packages on a system ? For example, if I installed dkms-virtualbox and then installed dkms-vboxadditions with --force, is there a query which would report that these two are in conflict ? My post-installation processing installs over 1000 additional packages to bring a fresh system up to the state of the system it is replacing, and --force is necessary to prevent scores of bogus prompts. It would be convenient to be able to detect the remaining conflicts once the dust has settled and the installs are finished so that any remaining conflicts can be addressed manually. good idea. Also, it seems that when a conflict is reported, it should list the applications (and versions) it finds to be in conflict. It is _really_ frustrating to have these anonymous conflicts, when rpm/urpm must know what it is finding in conflict. -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:18:03 +0100, Olivier Blin wrote: > Wolfgang Bornath writes: > > >>> It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the > >>> firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been > >>> changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed > >>> yet). > >> > >> They were also on the PowerPack images, and they are installed > >> automatically over a network install > > > > But to be installed via network you have to have a network connection > > first, n'est-ce pas? > > That's what this thread is about. > > It is now also about "in which media should we include non-free > packages?" :) > First of all, I would like to state that my intention was just to ask about the non-free blobs that free open source drivers need to work. But the discussion seems to have extended to general non-free software... From my point of view, including firmwares like intel, radeon, or linksys ones is just adding more instances of what already is in the kernel, it contains binary blobs also. I really was not thinking of things like nVidia or Radeon drivers, or others, that could raise more problems. I like the idea of an addtional iso with non-free drivers, but using two medias could be problematic. Just a blind shot, if this can be done easily in Linux: could we have two isos that could be combined into one by the user itself at burn time, or when dumping to an USB flash drive ? So from your point of view, you just offer a Free ISO for distribution, and an additional driver pack, and the user just have to burn/carry one media. -- J.A. Magallon \ Software is like sex: \ It's better when it's free
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On 24.03.2011 14:41, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > 2011/3/24 Anssi Hannula : >> On 24.03.2011 12:39, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: >>> But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents >>> in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not >>> care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We >>> should rather stress the point. >> >> Note that the current Alpha2 ISO contains many non-free [1] firmware >> files, and without those e.g. many popular wired NICs do not work, and >> the 3D acceleration of ATI *free* driver depends on those. >> >> [1] Depending on the definition - some are BSD/similar but still without >> source code, so considered non-free by OSI/FSF/Debian. > > Good point. In this discussion we were too vague about this. > As I see this the discussion so far was about "non-free" software, > where "non-free" meant the software in the non-free repos, not the > strict definition of "free" by FSF. > Prominent example (and trigger of this discussion): WiFi driver/firmware. Well, currently the firmware are assigned between non-free and core at random (yes, we have non-free firmware in core, and yes, there are GPL firmware in non-free, etc), so... -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
On 24 March 2011 11:56, Olivier Blin wrote: > nicolas vigier writes: > >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote: >> >>> >>> As I reiterate, Trinity does not interfere with KDE4 in any way, if >>> you keep /opt/kde3 >> >> Are you sure ? >> >> For libs installed in /opt/kde3/lib, rpm find-provides will add the >> provides for the libs on the packages. When an other package require >> this library, it will give the choice to install the Trinity package and >> some people will do it. >> >> Then there is two options : >> - /opt/kde3/lib is not in ld.so.conf, and the programs using this lib >> will not run >> - /opt/kde3/lib is in ld.so.conf, so the programs using this lib will >> run, but we can have two versions of the lib installed, one in /usr/lib >> and one in /opt/kde3/lib, and we don't know which one will be used, so >> we can see various strange problems. > > This should not be an issue if the libraries from Trinity and KDE4 have > different majors > > -- > Olivier Blin - blino > No guarantees on that point... you never know when the major of a lib is going to change, and there're hundreds of libs in a DE... -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
On 03/24/2011 10:35 AM, Colin Guthrie wrote: Could perhaps the firmware needed have been [re]moved with some other updates?... Perhaps the nic is not dead yet! :p It sure looked like the files were in /lib/firmware/rtl, although I suppose they could have moved. And booting with the prior kernel would still be using the same /lib/firmware, so the problem would occur with the older kernel as well. But that doesn't cover the case of booting from a 2009.1 partition which has worked with this NIC before. That partition would have the same kernel and /lib/firmware that worked the last time, no ?
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
'Twas brillig, and Frank Griffin at 24/03/11 13:21 did gyre and gimble: > On 03/24/2011 08:02 AM, Frank Griffin wrote: >> >> I'll do that today. I've looked in older logs, and I find places >> where the kernel puts out the "unable to load firmware" message, but >> then gets link beat anyway. >> > Well, I've never been a believer in coincidence, but I've booted the old > kernel (2.37.4) as well as 2009.1 and Knoppix, and it appears that the > onboard r8169 NIC just happened to pick the reboot to 2.38 to break. > Nobody sees a link beat on it. A NIC which just happens to give up the > ghost coincidentally with a reboot would have been pretty far down my > list of possibilities. > > Sorry for the noise. Could perhaps the firmware needed have been [re]moved with some other updates?... Perhaps the nic is not dead yet! :p Col -- Colin Guthrie mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
Re: [Mageia-dev] Gstreamer pfl codecs/plugins
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 14:55, Frank Griffin wrote: > On 03/24/2011 09:45 AM, Romain d'Alverny wrote: >> >> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses >> >> "The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be >> free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in >> certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues." >> >> and >> >> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mirrors_policy#tainted >> >> "stuff we think we can redistribute, but that may have some patent >> issues or other restrictions in other countries" >> >> look like consistent with each other, althought the "what belongs / is >> allowed here must still be discussed" indeed looks like it's not >> frozen yet. > > The reason I ask is that, in perusing the PLF package descriptions which > include the reason the package is in PLF, the criteria seems to be "Mandriva > was afraid to include this in main/contrib for a large list>" . So in the MDV context, that was valid for anything, true. > The Mageia policies try to enumerate specific reasons why > things will be put in tainted, but don't explcitly say that there's anything > we *wouldn't* put in tainted. So it's hard to know whether tainted == PLF > or not. Well I believe you should see this first as a concentric thing: Mageia is made of core, nonfree and tainted. * free software (OSI/FSF) goes in core; * that for which we don't have source but can redistribute go in nonfree; checked on a case-by-case basis; * all the rest goes into tainted on a case-by-case study again; things that likely either: - have no free license but under really significant patent-threat; Indeed, it should be distinctively made clear whether: * tainted keeps a focus on free software that is under risk, * or if it has a "all the rest that doesn't qualify for core or nonfree" I'd favour the latter as a default rule, keeping the case-by-case study for inclusion and leaving real life situations help us sort this out - it's really not easy to draw a general rule out of only a few practical cases. Anyway, two definitions is bad, so we should move it in a single place. Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Gstreamer pfl codecs/plugins
Quote: rdalverny wrote on Thu, 24 March 2011 14:45 > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 14:39, Frank Griffin > wrote: > > On 03/24/2011 05:14 AM, Tux99 wrote: > >> > >> Can you (or anyone) tell us when the build system will be ready to > deal > >> with source packages that generate both core and tainted binary > packages? > >> > >> Is it something that's still far off (months) or will this be > possible > >> soon? > > > > On a related issue, the wiki still states that we're not quite sure > > what > > will be in "tainted". Is this supposed to be a complete > > replacement for PLF > > Mandriva, or will there be a need for a PLF Mageia as well ? > > > http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses > > "The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be > free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in > certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues." > > and > > http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mirrors_policy#tainted > > "stuff we think we can redistribute, but that may have some patent > issues or other restrictions in other countries" > > look like consistent with each other, althought the "what belongs / is > allowed here must still be discussed" indeed looks like it's not > frozen yet. Actually I never noticed the second definition before, but the two definitions are certainly not consistent with each other, the second definition includes 'non-free' tainted software too since it only says that "we can redistribute" (non-free sw. is redistributable otherwise we can't have it in any repo at all). If the second definition is the valid one (I would prefer this one) then the whole recent thread about where to put "tainted+non-free" packages was moot, since it can go it "tainted". -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Gstreamer pfl codecs/plugins
On 03/24/2011 09:45 AM, Romain d'Alverny wrote: http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses "The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues." and http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mirrors_policy#tainted "stuff we think we can redistribute, but that may have some patent issues or other restrictions in other countries" look like consistent with each other, althought the "what belongs / is allowed here must still be discussed" indeed looks like it's not frozen yet. The reason I ask is that, in perusing the PLF package descriptions which include the reason the package is in PLF, the criteria seems to be "Mandriva was afraid to include this in main/contrib for own reason from a large list>" . The Mageia policies try to enumerate specific reasons why things will be put in tainted, but don't explcitly say that there's anything we *wouldn't* put in tainted. So it's hard to know whether tainted == PLF or not.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Gstreamer pfl codecs/plugins
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 14:39, Frank Griffin wrote: > On 03/24/2011 05:14 AM, Tux99 wrote: >> >> Can you (or anyone) tell us when the build system will be ready to deal >> with source packages that generate both core and tainted binary packages? >> >> Is it something that's still far off (months) or will this be possible >> soon? > > On a related issue, the wiki still states that we're not quite sure what > will be in "tainted". Is this supposed to be a complete replacement for PLF > Mandriva, or will there be a need for a PLF Mageia as well ? http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses "The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues." and http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mirrors_policy#tainted "stuff we think we can redistribute, but that may have some patent issues or other restrictions in other countries" look like consistent with each other, althought the "what belongs / is allowed here must still be discussed" indeed looks like it's not frozen yet. Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Gstreamer pfl codecs/plugins
On 03/24/2011 05:14 AM, Tux99 wrote: Can you (or anyone) tell us when the build system will be ready to deal with source packages that generate both core and tainted binary packages? Is it something that's still far off (months) or will this be possible soon? On a related issue, the wiki still states that we're not quite sure what will be in "tainted". Is this supposed to be a complete replacement for PLF Mandriva, or will there be a need for a PLF Mageia as well ?
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On 24 March 2011 11:38, Olivier Blin wrote: >> What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not >> install them? >> I think the majority of the users don't care that much about >> proprietary issues, they just need them for using there wireless card >> or graphic card. Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part >> of the DVD. :) > > Yep, it could just be an option. The desktop selection step seems to be a > good place in the installer to include it, it is visible enough, and > right before packages installation. Though it would have to be renamed. > > We could have a checkbox "Install proprietary drivers if needed > (non-free software)", ticked by default. if firmware are needed for network installation, we would need support in stage1 instead.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
On 03/24/2011 08:02 AM, Frank Griffin wrote: I'll do that today. I've looked in older logs, and I find places where the kernel puts out the "unable to load firmware" message, but then gets link beat anyway. Well, I've never been a believer in coincidence, but I've booted the old kernel (2.37.4) as well as 2009.1 and Knoppix, and it appears that the onboard r8169 NIC just happened to pick the reboot to 2.38 to break. Nobody sees a link beat on it. A NIC which just happens to give up the ghost coincidentally with a reboot would have been pretty far down my list of possibilities. Sorry for the noise.
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:13, Tux99 wrote: > Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1 on > Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed with coexistence in > mind, so there shouldn't be any unsolvable issues. Maybe it did coexist well at a significant cost on the packaging side? (time, packaging compromises) and maybe the situation isn't exactly the same as then? > This is exactly what I would call a reasonable factual argumentation. But an argument is not going to make anyone progress one way or the other here obviously. If there are fears, then provide facts to counter them (no argument, but facts). You propose to add TDE in the repository. After this discussion, the next step is you to first package TDE, build and test and see/demonstrate how it goes, regarding at least these 5 points (summarized from above) before an integration is considered: 1. no conflict on files 2. install in %_prefix (not in /opt) 3. no duplicate software name (do not confuse user to decide between tde-k3b and k3b for instance - or find a realistic workaround use case). 4. at this point, no apps outside of the TDE project should require TDE 5. committed maintainers Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Anssi Hannula : > On 24.03.2011 12:39, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: >> But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents >> in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not >> care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We >> should rather stress the point. > > Note that the current Alpha2 ISO contains many non-free [1] firmware > files, and without those e.g. many popular wired NICs do not work, and > the 3D acceleration of ATI *free* driver depends on those. > > [1] Depending on the definition - some are BSD/similar but still without > source code, so considered non-free by OSI/FSF/Debian. Good point. In this discussion we were too vague about this. As I see this the discussion so far was about "non-free" software, where "non-free" meant the software in the non-free repos, not the strict definition of "free" by FSF. Prominent example (and trigger of this discussion): WiFi driver/firmware. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On 24.03.2011 12:39, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents > in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not > care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We > should rather stress the point. Note that the current Alpha2 ISO contains many non-free [1] firmware files, and without those e.g. many popular wired NICs do not work, and the 3D acceleration of ATI *free* driver depends on those. [1] Depending on the definition - some are BSD/similar but still without source code, so considered non-free by OSI/FSF/Debian. -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On 24.03.2011 12:53, Michael Scherer wrote: > Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Thorsten van Lil a écrit : >> Am 24.03.2011 09:57, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: >>> 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir > wrote: >> >> Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? > > No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, > and this question is i think interesting. > >>> A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free >>> "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. >>> >> >> What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not >> install them? >> I think the majority of the users don't care that much about proprietary >> issues, they just need them for using there wireless card or graphic >> card. Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part of the DVD. :) > > Well, personally, then I would just continue to use Fedora or others > distribution on my computers, and keep Mageia just for the servers of > the project. Fedora includes non-free firmware both in repo and medias, so why prefer that? -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
On 03/24/2011 07:55 AM, Thomas Backlund wrote: No r8169 fixes in upstream 2.6.38.1 I'll check HEAD commits... Should be easy to check if kernel is at fault Boot the old kernel... Is the issue gone ? I'll do that today. I've looked in older logs, and I find places where the kernel puts out the "unable to load firmware" message, but then gets link beat anyway.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
Colin Guthrie skrev 24.3.2011 13:18: 'Twas brillig, and Frank Griffin at 23/03/11 21:38 did gyre and gimble: I updated cauldron this morning, and later rebooted my desktop. My r8169 on eth0 is suddenly having problems, maybe due to the new kernel. There should be a new kernel later today (or maybe tomorrow). Fingers crossed that will help. No r8169 fixes in upstream 2.6.38.1 I'll check HEAD commits... Should be easy to check if kernel is at fault Boot the old kernel... Is the issue gone ? -- Thomas
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Am 24.03.2011 11:53, schrieb Michael Scherer: Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Thorsten van Lil a écrit : What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not install them? I think the majority of the users don't care that much about proprietary issues, they just need them for using there wireless card or graphic card. Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part of the DVD. :) Well, personally, then I would just continue to use Fedora or others distribution on my computers, and keep Mageia just for the servers of the project. Why? I respect those who don't want to use non-free software, so this shouldn't be a discussion about ideology. But I don't see a real difference between an free-iso + an extra iso for non-free and an iso where non-free is in an extra directory and can be used if the user wants to. The only difference I see is, like wobo said, the public perception but this couldn't be your trigger? Regards, Thorsten
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Thursday, 24 March 2011 13:03:08 Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > 2011/3/24 Romain d'Alverny : > > Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant > > survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity > > storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as > > that those two media are available from the network without > > discrimination. > > > > So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as > > the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the > > user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea > > about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a > > different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition > > too). > > In the public appearance this would make a difference. As soon as > there is non-free contents on the ISO it is a non-free ISO. That we > provide non-free on the mirrors doesn't make Mageia a non-free distro, > only what we offer as "products". According to which definition/guidelines? According to FSF, we are probably currently non-free. Regards, Buchan
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Thursday, 24 March 2011 12:48:22 Romain d'Alverny wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:39, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > > But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents > > in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not > > care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We > > should rather stress the point. > > > > We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we > > not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for > > non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free. > > Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant > survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity > storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as > that those two media are available from the network without > discrimination. > > So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as > the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the > user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea > about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a > different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition > too). The question is, why do we want to have a free distribution? What are suitable guidelines? The users who want a Free distribution, would probably choose one that adheres to the FSF free distribution guidelines: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html I think we already don't meet them, with or without a Free DVD, even if we were to remove non-free firmware in the kernel, because we have non-free repos. > > And that would make the case for a consistent installing experience > that, no matter you're doing an exclusively ISO-based install or a > network-based install, you get through the same steps (with a > consistent opt-in or opt-out, clearly explained). It would only happen > that non-free media is available locally if asked for. > > The alternative, if we're not to mix things on the static media, is to > have distinct ISOs: free and nonfree/tainted ones. Times the format: > DVD/CD/arch/USB through which we would have to decide to ease: > building, qa and distribution (we will have to choose a default one to > provide to visitors on the download page for instance). Is there a real benefit? Or, is usability more important? Or, do we want to discuss with FSF the guidelines and whether it is possible for a distribution project to both meet their guidelines (e.g., if user chooses X media, they will never be prompted for non-free software, repositories etc.) and be useful for real-world-users who can't always choose hardware based on open-ness alone? Regards, Buchan
Re: [Mageia-dev] Sudden problems with r8169 NICs ?
'Twas brillig, and Frank Griffin at 23/03/11 21:38 did gyre and gimble: > I updated cauldron this morning, and later rebooted my desktop. My > r8169 on eth0 is suddenly having problems, maybe due to the new kernel. There should be a new kernel later today (or maybe tomorrow). Fingers crossed that will help. Col -- Colin Guthrie mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Thursday, 24 March 2011 10:57:17 Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir : > > On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir wrote: > >>> Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? > >> > >> No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, > >> and this question is i think interesting. > > > > It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the > > firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been > > changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed > > yet). > > Correct. It's the same dilemma you have in Mandriva. You either need a > cable attached to use the free edition or you have to use the "ONE > Edition" and install all the needed software later (ex: > system-config-printer, which is not on the ONE cds). Or, you use Powerpack DVD. The question is, should there be a Mageia equivalent? Regards, Buchan
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:03, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > In the public appearance this would make a difference. As soon as > there is non-free contents on the ISO it is a non-free ISO. That we > provide non-free on the mirrors doesn't make Mageia a non-free distro, > only what we offer as "products". Yes. > That's why I also don't like the idea to have a free ISO and an ISO > including core & non-free. Why not? (genuine question - that was what Powerpack used to be - and there are places where shipping a DVD is still more affordable than getting it through the wire). > No. As I already wrote: a small dualarch "driver ISO" is all that's needed. > No issue about what kind of distro Mageia supplies, no issue about > build efforts. Ok. Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Romain d'Alverny : > > Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant > survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity > storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as > that those two media are available from the network without > discrimination. > > So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as > the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the > user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea > about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a > different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition > too). In the public appearance this would make a difference. As soon as there is non-free contents on the ISO it is a non-free ISO. That we provide non-free on the mirrors doesn't make Mageia a non-free distro, only what we offer as "products". That's why I also don't like the idea to have a free ISO and an ISO including core & non-free. > The alternative, if we're not to mix things on the static media, is to > have distinct ISOs: free and nonfree/tainted ones. Times the format: > DVD/CD/arch/USB through which we would have to decide to ease: > building, qa and distribution (we will have to choose a default one to > provide to visitors on the download page for instance). No. As I already wrote: a small dualarch "driver ISO" is all that's needed. No issue about what kind of distro Mageia supplies, no issue about build efforts. Plus the benefit of making the user aware of the difference. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Oliver Burger : > Am Donnerstag 24 März 2011, 11:43:57 schrieb Rémi Verschelde: >> 2011/3/24 Wolfgang Bornath : >> > We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we >> > not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for >> > non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free. >> >> That's what I was thinking about. Could it be possible to have a >> "free" ISO and a "non-free" ISO? (although we should not advertise it >> this way, for "Mageia 1 Non-Free" isn't very glamorous). >> I'm not really knowledgeable on this matter so there may be inherent >> problems to that solution. >> > If I'm not mistaken, Debian squeeze doesn't put any nonfree things on it's ISO > at all, but you can put an archive containing them on an usb key and the > installer looks for it and installs them, when they are present. I think, that > is an elegant way, isn't it? Well, that's exactly what I suggested in the beginning: a small dualarch ISO with the non-free stuff to be used additionally during installation (and later). -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On 03/24/2011 04:57 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. Excellent suggestion, and it dovetails with another problem: being able to do a network install over a wireless connection. If there were an optional non-free "network" ISO supported by the install stage 1, that would address both issues, no ?
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Thorsten van Lil a écrit : > Am 24.03.2011 09:57, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: > > 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: > >> On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir > >>> wrote: > > Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? > >>> > >>> No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, > >>> and this question is i think interesting. > >>> > > A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free > > "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. > > > > What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not > install them? > I think the majority of the users don't care that much about proprietary > issues, they just need them for using there wireless card or graphic > card. Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part of the DVD. :) Well, personally, then I would just continue to use Fedora or others distribution on my computers, and keep Mageia just for the servers of the project. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Am Donnerstag 24 März 2011, 11:43:57 schrieb Rémi Verschelde: > 2011/3/24 Wolfgang Bornath : > > We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we > > not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for > > non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free. > > That's what I was thinking about. Could it be possible to have a > "free" ISO and a "non-free" ISO? (although we should not advertise it > this way, for "Mageia 1 Non-Free" isn't very glamorous). > I'm not really knowledgeable on this matter so there may be inherent > problems to that solution. > If I'm not mistaken, Debian squeeze doesn't put any nonfree things on it's ISO at all, but you can put an archive containing them on an usb key and the installer looks for it and installs them, when they are present. I think, that is an elegant way, isn't it? Oliver
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:39, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents > in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not > care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We > should rather stress the point. > > We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we > not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for > non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free. Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as that those two media are available from the network without discrimination. So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition too). And that would make the case for a consistent installing experience that, no matter you're doing an exclusively ISO-based install or a network-based install, you get through the same steps (with a consistent opt-in or opt-out, clearly explained). It would only happen that non-free media is available locally if asked for. The alternative, if we're not to mix things on the static media, is to have distinct ISOs: free and nonfree/tainted ones. Times the format: DVD/CD/arch/USB through which we would have to decide to ease: building, qa and distribution (we will have to choose a default one to provide to visitors on the download page for instance). Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Donald Stewart skrev 24.3.2011 11:39: I've never installed with more than one cd, but from memory, the installer asks for extra media, surely if your installing from the free dvd and have to eject it to add a non-free cd then that would cause problems, or have I misunderstood? Nope, Installer will only ask you to switch media when needed, and then continue. If I've misunderstood, this would be really great. An extra thing would be a plug in that the installer could download for you containing the non-free stuff. Quite often I install new stuff on my laptop close to a wire, then take it out with me and thats when I need the wireless stuff. Not to mention non-free graphics drivers on desktops that have a wired connection having to be installed and set up post install. It already can if you add network medias during install, but in order to pull anything from the net, you need the firmware (if you have a nic/wifi that needs it) -- thomas
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Wolfgang Bornath : > > We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we > not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for > non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free. > That's what I was thinking about. Could it be possible to have a "free" ISO and a "non-free" ISO? (although we should not advertise it this way, for "Mageia 1 Non-Free" isn't very glamorous). I'm not really knowledgeable on this matter so there may be inherent problems to that solution. Regards, Rémi
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Olivier Blin : > Thorsten van Lil writes: > >> Am 24.03.2011 09:57, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: >>> 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir > wrote: >> >> Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? > > No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, > and this question is i think interesting. > >>> A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free >>> "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. >>> >> >> What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not >> install them? >> I think the majority of the users don't care that much about >> proprietary issues, they just need them for using there wireless card >> or graphic card. Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part >> of the DVD. :) > > Yep, it could just be an option. The desktop selection step seems to be a > good place in the installer to include it, it is visible enough, and > right before packages installation. Though it would have to be renamed. > > We could have a checkbox "Install proprietary drivers if needed > (non-free software)", ticked by default. Are you aware that this would mean that Mageia is not a "free distribution" as planned? No matter how you phrase the question and how many checkboxes a user would have to check, if non-free contents is included in an ISO it is not a free ISO anymore. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Thorsten van Lil : > > What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not > install them? > I think the majority of the users don't care that much about proprietary > issues, they just need them for using there wireless card or graphic card. > Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part of the DVD. :) Well, this would be the "opt-out" version. If ever we include non-free software in an ISO we should at least use an "opt-in" approach, like the graphic configuration does. It asks "There is a non-free driver, do you want it then say 'yes' ". But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We should rather stress the point. We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Thorsten van Lil writes: > Am 24.03.2011 09:57, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: >> 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: >>> On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir wrote: > > Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, and this question is i think interesting. >> A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free >> "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. >> > > What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not > install them? > I think the majority of the users don't care that much about > proprietary issues, they just need them for using there wireless card > or graphic card. Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part > of the DVD. :) Yep, it could just be an option. The desktop selection step seems to be a good place in the installer to include it, it is visible enough, and right before packages installation. Though it would have to be renamed. We could have a checkbox "Install proprietary drivers if needed (non-free software)", ticked by default. -- Olivier Blin - blino
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Thorsten van Lil : > Am 24.03.2011 09:57, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: >> >> 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: >>> >>> On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir wrote: > > Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, and this question is i think interesting. >> A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free >> "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. >> > > What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not > install them? > I think the majority of the users don't care that much about proprietary > issues, they just need them for using there wireless card or graphic card. > Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part of the DVD. :) The problem really is to now what is this majority :). SPeaking without figures is a bit tricky. I guess Romain will propose some investigations on this so that we can find the best solution for end users and advanced users. > > Regards, > Thorsten > > -- Anne http://www.mageia.org
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Wolfgang Bornath writes: >>> It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the >>> firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been >>> changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed >>> yet). >> >> They were also on the PowerPack images, and they are installed >> automatically over a network install > > But to be installed via network you have to have a network connection > first, n'est-ce pas? > That's what this thread is about. It is now also about "in which media should we include non-free packages?" :) -- Olivier Blin - blino
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Am 24.03.2011 09:57, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir wrote: Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, and this question is i think interesting. A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. What about a DVD including non-free packages but has the option to not install them? I think the majority of the users don't care that much about proprietary issues, they just need them for using there wireless card or graphic card. Those how do care can just uncheck the non-free part of the DVD. :) Regards, Thorsten
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Olivier Blin : > Ahmad Samir writes: > >> On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir >>> wrote: Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? >>> >>> No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, >>> and this question is i think interesting. >>> >> >> It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the >> firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been >> changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed >> yet). > > They were also on the PowerPack images, and they are installed > automatically over a network install But to be installed via network you have to have a network connection first, n'est-ce pas? That's what this thread is about. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
nicolas vigier writes: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote: > >> >> As I reiterate, Trinity does not interfere with KDE4 in any way, if >> you keep /opt/kde3 > > Are you sure ? > > For libs installed in /opt/kde3/lib, rpm find-provides will add the > provides for the libs on the packages. When an other package require > this library, it will give the choice to install the Trinity package and > some people will do it. > > Then there is two options : > - /opt/kde3/lib is not in ld.so.conf, and the programs using this lib >will not run > - /opt/kde3/lib is in ld.so.conf, so the programs using this lib will >run, but we can have two versions of the lib installed, one in /usr/lib >and one in /opt/kde3/lib, and we don't know which one will be used, so >we can see various strange problems. This should not be an issue if the libraries from Trinity and KDE4 have different majors -- Olivier Blin - blino
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Ahmad Samir writes: > On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir >> wrote: >>> >>> Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? >> >> No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, >> and this question is i think interesting. >> > > It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the > firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been > changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed > yet). They were also on the PowerPack images, and they are installed automatically over a network install -- Olivier Blin - blino
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
I opened https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523 -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
On 24 March 2011 05:22, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > 2011/3/24 Thomas Backlund : >> Wolfgang Bornath skrev 24.3.2011 10:57: >>> >>> 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed yet). >>> >>> Correct. It's the same dilemma you have in Mandriva. You either need a >>> cable attached to use the free edition or you have to use the "ONE >>> Edition" and install all the needed software later (ex: >>> system-config-printer, which is not on the ONE cds). If you want to >>> have a free distribution there's no way around this as long as there >>> is the need for non-free firmware to use certain hardware. >>> >>> A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free >>> "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. >>> >> >> This is actually a very good idea, and already supported by the installer, >> so it should work nicely... >> >> I think this is the way to do it... > > I'll open an "enhancement" bug for that. > > -- > wobo > I've never installed with more than one cd, but from memory, the installer asks for extra media, surely if your installing from the free dvd and have to eject it to add a non-free cd then that would cause problems, or have I misunderstood? If I've misunderstood, this would be really great. An extra thing would be a plug in that the installer could download for you containing the non-free stuff. Quite often I install new stuff on my laptop close to a wire, then take it out with me and thats when I need the wireless stuff. Not to mention non-free graphics drivers on desktops that have a wired connection having to be installed and set up post install.
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Robert Xu wrote: > > As I reiterate, Trinity does not interfere with KDE4 in any way, if > you keep /opt/kde3 Are you sure ? For libs installed in /opt/kde3/lib, rpm find-provides will add the provides for the libs on the packages. When an other package require this library, it will give the choice to install the Trinity package and some people will do it. Then there is two options : - /opt/kde3/lib is not in ld.so.conf, and the programs using this lib will not run - /opt/kde3/lib is in ld.so.conf, so the programs using this lib will run, but we can have two versions of the lib installed, one in /usr/lib and one in /opt/kde3/lib, and we don't know which one will be used, so we can see various strange problems.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Thomas Backlund : > Wolfgang Bornath skrev 24.3.2011 10:57: >> >> 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: >>> >>> It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the >>> firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been >>> changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed >>> yet). >> >> Correct. It's the same dilemma you have in Mandriva. You either need a >> cable attached to use the free edition or you have to use the "ONE >> Edition" and install all the needed software later (ex: >> system-config-printer, which is not on the ONE cds). If you want to >> have a free distribution there's no way around this as long as there >> is the need for non-free firmware to use certain hardware. >> >> A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free >> "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. >> > > This is actually a very good idea, and already supported by the installer, > so it should work nicely... > > I think this is the way to do it... I'll open an "enhancement" bug for that. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
Wolfgang Bornath skrev 24.3.2011 10:57: 2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir: It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed yet). Correct. It's the same dilemma you have in Mandriva. You either need a cable attached to use the free edition or you have to use the "ONE Edition" and install all the needed software later (ex: system-config-printer, which is not on the ONE cds). If you want to have a free distribution there's no way around this as long as there is the need for non-free firmware to use certain hardware. A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. This is actually a very good idea, and already supported by the installer, so it should work nicely... I think this is the way to do it... -- Thomas
Re: [Mageia-dev] Gstreamer pfl codecs/plugins
Quote: Balcaen John wrote on Thu, 10 March 2011 17:41 > > Le Thursday 10 March 2011 12:19:52, Tux99 a écrit : > > The same question also applies to mplayer, which I just noticed > > also > > doesn't include codecs like h.264 and aac. > For the moment there's a work in progress regarding the BS so the > package can > be automatically build for core/release & tainted/release on the same > submission. Can you (or anyone) tell us when the build system will be ready to deal with source packages that generate both core and tainted binary packages? Is it something that's still far off (months) or will this be possible soon? -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Non-free firmwares in installer
2011/3/24 Ahmad Samir : > On 24 March 2011 02:58, Dexter Morgan wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ahmad Samir >> wrote: >>> >>> Has the Free DVD in Mandriva ever contained non-free firmware? >> >> No, but the question is more , will we provide a "non free" dvd iso, >> and this question is i think interesting. >> > > It can't be "free" and have "non-free" firmware... previously the > firmware only were on the Live CD's. I am not sure anything has been > changed in that regard (i.e. I didn't see the matter get discussed > yet). Correct. It's the same dilemma you have in Mandriva. You either need a cable attached to use the free edition or you have to use the "ONE Edition" and install all the needed software later (ex: system-config-printer, which is not on the ONE cds). If you want to have a free distribution there's no way around this as long as there is the need for non-free firmware to use certain hardware. A possible solution for people with such a setup could be a non-free "driver cd ISO" which they could include in the installation process. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
Quote: Oliver Burger wrote on Thu, 24 March 2011 08:53 > > Am Donnerstag 24 März 2011, 08:23:18 schrieb Tux99: > > I think this thread is starting to derail from a simple technical > > question > > limted to a specific issue (reenabling qt-dev) to an ideological > > argument > > based greatly on fear and paranoia. > > It is? I don't think so. Unless you think considerations about > conflicts of TDE > with KDE4 are an "ideological argument based greatly on fear and > paranoia". But that's exactly my point, there is posts about fear/paranoia of conflicts here in this thread, not a factual argument on real existing conflicts. Like I said before, KDE3.5 coexisted very well with KDE4 since 2009.1 on Mandriva and Trinity is even more so being developed with coexistence in mind, so there shouldn't be any unsolvable issues. But again my point is issues should be debated constructively and factually when they are being encountered, not a whole software package being dismissed in advance out of general fear and paranoia. > > The core packages are quite limited in number (6-7 SRPMS), but > > already > > enable the use of TDE as desktop. > > As long as those packages (and all the others, that follow) are > following the > packaging guidlines, are not conflicting with KDE4 apps and are named > in a way > that users see, these are TDE packages, it's ok with me! This is exactly what I would call a reasonable factual argumentation. -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
Am Donnerstag 24 März 2011, 08:23:18 schrieb Tux99: > I think this thread is starting to derail from a simple technical question > limted to a specific issue (reenabling qt-dev) to an ideological argument > based greatly on fear and paranoia. It is? I don't think so. Unless you think considerations about conflicts of TDE with KDE4 are an "ideological argument based greatly on fear and paranoia". I do go along with the majority of people writing in this thread. We should not have a DE conflicting with KDE4, we should not have packages or apps by the same name. > The core packages are quite limited in number (6-7 SRPMS), but already > enable the use of TDE as desktop. As long as those packages (and all the others, that follow) are following the packaging guidlines, are not conflicting with KDE4 apps and are named in a way that users see, these are TDE packages, it's ok with me! Oliver
Re: [Mageia-dev] qt3-devel needed for Trinitydesktop (KDE 3.5 successor)
I think this thread is starting to derail from a simple technical question limted to a specific issue (reenabling qt-dev) to an ideological argument based greatly on fear and paranoia. Adding TrinityDE to Mageia, like adding any bigger software, is a gradual step by step process. I don't think anybody is planning an untested mass import of the whole load of TDE packages in one go. My idea is to first get the core TDE packages into Mageia cauldron (of course tested locally first) and then gradually look at the apps one by one (not necessarily me, any packager who is interested in TDE should of course participate). The core packages are quite limited in number (6-7 SRPMS), but already enable the use of TDE as desktop. I hope such an approach is agreeable for everyone. -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
