Hi,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 16:44:39 +0100
Ansgar wrote:
> Sadly no; I think some later discussion made me doubt that there was
> indeed consensus about having non-free-firmware (and only that and not
> non-free-doc, non-free-drivers, non-free-*). Nor about how it would
> work.
>
> I don't think we
Hi,
Hideki Yamane writes:
> Is there any progress about non-free-firmware section?
Sadly no; I think some later discussion made me doubt that there was
indeed consensus about having non-free-firmware (and only that and not
non-free-doc, non-free-drivers, non-free-*). Nor about how it would
wor
Hi,
Is there any progress about non-free-firmware section?
> Hi,
>
> I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section
> and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need
> to do next?
>
> Besides the ftp team setting the new section up, I expect the
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 20:56:08 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>
> > I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section
> > and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need
> > to do next?
>
> I have a qu
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:27:22 -0500
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote:
> > And btw:
> > Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps
> > generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source
> > software while k
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote:
> And btw:
> Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps
> generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source
> software while keeping other non-free software, then the name
> non-free-firmware
And btw:
Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps
generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source
software while keeping other non-free software, then the name
non-free-firmware seems to break the current naming, doesn't it?
main
contrib
non-free
These
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware
> section
> and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we
> need
> to do next?
While it's good that at least something happens it's really sad and
kinda disturbing to see that a more narro
Ansgar Burchardt (2016-01-09):
> I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section
> and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need
> to do next?
>
> Besides the ftp team setting the new section up, I expect the installer
> would need changes to enabl
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section
> and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need
> to do next?
I have a question about the implementation; will non-free firmware be
in non-fre
Hi,
I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section
and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need
to do next?
Besides the ftp team setting the new section up, I expect the installer
would need changes to enable it instead of non-free when non-free
11 matches
Mail list logo