Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:25:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
At a minumum, the patch for tg3 exists and is fully
functional: check with [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the version against
er, that's @recycle.lbl.gov
I'm having him send me a copy.
the
up-to-date kernel, and
Steve Langasek wrote:
If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
to sarge. I don't think that's acceptable. We obviously do have the
means to remove this particular subset of non-free
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:25:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
snip
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
snip
(someone, I'm not sure who, wrote:)
Re-adding them at this stage
1) is against the current social contract
Yes, but then so is
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 01:08:10PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Today I sent an email asking upstream to remove dgrs based on its
uselessness; we'll see what happens.
Thanks. We should consider removing it, too then.
Best regards
Frederik Schueler
--
ENOSIG
signature.asc
Frederik Schueler wrote:
Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware blobs shipped
upstream, even those we kept pruning since the day Herbert Xu removed
them the first time in 2004.
My apologies for blowing up, although it looks like my flaming message died
in transit.
Anyway, it's
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:25:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If the firmware-loading tg3 driver is present in the next kernel package
version, I will believe that the kernel team is acting in good faith to try
to satisfy the Social Contract.
According to the kernel-team patch
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:25:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
At a minumum, the patch for tg3 exists and is fully
functional: check with [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the version against the
up-to-date kernel, and the corresponding loadable firmware files. It works
Comments from other had made
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 01:08:10PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:25:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
snip
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
snip
(someone, I'm not sure who, wrote:)
Re-adding them at this stage
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 12:39:38PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
to sarge. I don't think that's acceptable. We
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
to sarge. I don't think that's acceptable. We obviously do have the
means to remove this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:58:14 +0200 Frederik Schueler wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:16:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:53:21PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I honestly believe that moving linux-2.6 to non-free hurts our users
more than stripping non-free parts of the Debian-precompiled kernel.
of course.
Also, section 4 of the SC talks equally about users and free
[Dropping -release from cc anyway; there's no possible reason this needs to
be cross-posted to 4 lists]
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:58:31AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thursday 21 September 2006 19:01, Frans Pop wrote:
It will only hit the mirrors tonight or maybe even tomorrow (not sure).
I will try to run an installation test tomorrow to see if 2.6.17 is
picked up correctly.
Tested and OK.
pgpcD2wdz1o73.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:25:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
[Dropping -release from cc anyway; there's no possible reason this needs to
be cross-posted to 4 lists]
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:58:31AM -0500, Bill Allombert
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:16:02 +0200 Frederik Schueler wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:53:21PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I honestly believe that moving linux-2.6 to non-free hurts our users
more than stripping non-free parts of the Debian-precompiled kernel.
of course.
Also,
Arrgh!
Please ignore my post a moment ago. In a moment of carelessness I
forgot my promise of throwing no more flames in this thread :-(
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær:
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:13:14PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
And exactly this is what it is all about: find a way to satisfy BOTH
priorities, not just one.
No. It is about the definition of our users.
If our users are dependent on non-free software, then we indirectly
say
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:51:12PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
Xen should be okay. According to the maintainer of this tree, ia64
should work fine also.
The ia64/xen folks here think so too - I'm not too familiar with Xen,
but if you want to enable ia64/xen in linux-2.6 I should be able to
get
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:46:06AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
The ia64/xen folks here think so too - I'm not too familiar with Xen,
but if you want to enable ia64/xen in linux-2.6 I should be able to
get help from HP people if we run into ia64-specific problems.
The question is, do we want/can
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:20:39PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:38, Frederik Schueler wrote:
First, the migration status and plan looks as follows:
- linux-2.6 2.6.17-9 has already migrated to testing and can be updated
through t-p-u.
- after
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:16:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware blobs shipped
upstream, even those we kept pruning since the day Herbert Xu removed
them the first time in
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:16:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware blobs shipped
upstream, even those we kept pruning since the day Herbert Xu removed
them the first time
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware blobs shipped
upstream, even those we kept pruning since the day Herbert Xu removed
them the first time in 2004.
Initially, we wanted to wait for a positive GR vote outcome
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060921 13:11]:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware blobs shipped
upstream, even those we kept pruning since the day Herbert Xu removed
them the first time in 2004.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
First, the migration status and plan looks as follows:
- after linux-latest-2.6 migrates into testing later today, we will upload
a new linux-latest-2.6 pointing to 2.6.18 to unstable.
This should be done with the last
On Thursday 21 September 2006 18:51, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
First, the migration status and plan looks as follows:
- after linux-latest-2.6 migrates into testing later today, we will
upload a new linux-latest-2.6 pointing to
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
There won't be any GR, there will be a new pet proposal until forever, and
endless discussions as we start recalling the DPL, and bashing on the
secretary and what not.
In the absence of GR, the current situation is that sourceless
Note to list-masters:
Please circumvent the ban on me for debian-release, and have the integrity
of my mails concerning this thread reach that mailing list too for
completeness of this rather important discussion. -- Thanks.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:58:31AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello,
Linux 2.6.18 has been released, and it looks like we can do a first
upload today.
First, the migration status and plan looks as follows:
- linux-2.6 2.6.17-9 has already migrated to testing and can be updated
through t-p-u.
- after linux-latest-2.6 migrates into testing later today,
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:38, Frederik Schueler wrote:
First, the migration status and plan looks as follows:
- linux-2.6 2.6.17-9 has already migrated to testing and can be updated
through t-p-u.
- after linux-latest-2.6 migrates into testing later today, we will
upload a new
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware blobs shipped
upstream, even those we kept pruning since the day Herbert Xu removed
them the first time in 2004.
What in the world? Why would you do that anyway?
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:16:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware blobs shipped
upstream, even those we kept pruning since the day Herbert Xu removed
them the first time in
33 matches
Mail list logo
