Merci pour la réactivité!
Effectivement, un petit cou d'apt-cache search m'avait donné ce résultat.
Mais si ce paquet donne la doc sur le fonctionnement d'APT et de dpkg, ainsi
que sur le format des fichiers qu'ils utilisent, il ne documentent pas l'API
perl ou 'api C de apt et de dpkg.
Ce
* Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041210 19:55]:
Yup. There's never been a sense of urgency. The RM's throw out release
dates and goals every once in a while, but no one seems to take those
seriously.
Not true. (And, perhaps you noticed, the release team avoided to give
specific days in
On 2004-12-08 Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Anyway the solution seems to be overengineered for the problem at
hand. I have yet to decide whether
* I'll close the bugreport with request denied
Please don't do that but tag it wontfix instead if you won't fix
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 09:41:47AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041210 19:55]:
Yup. There's never been a sense of urgency. The RM's throw out release
dates and goals every once in a while, but no one seems to take those
seriously.
Not true. (And,
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040717 15:55]:
[AMD64 situation]
As to the
technical questions ftpmaster wants to raise, I'm quite disappointed
that they have not been posted yet because I was promised at DebConf
that it would happen soon. I've now asked
Hi,
I seem to have un-frozen a couple of historic mails. Sorry for the
noise, please ignore them.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
| * Chasecreek Systemhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-10 20:56]:
| agreed to set up the machine, host it for a while and give interested
| developers access. This box is not a general .debian.org
|
| Is this by invitation only?
|
| Debian
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| That's a bad reason; if you applied it consistently you'd have to get
| rid of frozen-bubble.
everybody knows that frozen-bubble is useful for delaying Debian
releases.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 00:13 +, Rich Walker wrote:
It is outrageous to think that China's or Saudia Arabia's censorship
regimes should somehow influence our decision making in the slightest.
I believe the correct flame-inducing argument at this point is tell
that to the first person
also sprach Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.12.11.0259 +0100]:
Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, this is the sensible to do it.
Repacking and
* Bruce Perens:
The Linux Core Consortium would like to have Debian's involvement. This
organization has revived what I originally proposed to do as the LSB -
to make a binary base for Linux distributions that could be among
several distributions who would share in the effort of
* Michael Banck:
2. GNOME succeeded for the desktop.
Are there any proprietary COTS applications for GNOME where vendor
support isn't bound to specific GNU/Linux distributions?
Maybe GNOME is a good example of cross-vendor cooperation (but so is
GCC), but would be quite surprised if this
* Brian Nelson:
Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters?
It's about infrastructure, so the security team is out (they are just
users of this
* Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-11 12:36]:
Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters?
It's about infrastructure, so the security
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:39:55PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
You've just described the way the LSB has done it for years, which thus
far, hasn't worked--while there are numerous LSB-certified distros,
there are exactly zero LSB-certified applications. The reason for this
is that substantially
* Steve Langasek:
Um, what's the concrete use case for a cross-distro standard network
configuration interface?
VPN software, intrusion detection systems, software for CALEA support,
centralized management software.
Thomas Womack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you have libgmp2-dev or libgmp3-dev installed?
I have libgmp2, libgmp3 4.0.1-3 and libgmp3-dev 4.0.1-3, so you're using
later versions of all the relevant packages (indeed, since you're on amd64,
on entirely different hardware) and the bug is still
On Saturday 11 December 2004 01:13, Rich Walker wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Non-US exists because export of strong crypto from the US is an
illegal act in the US. Hence, Debian has already accepted that
local laws
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 284978 gmp
Bug#284978: general: libgmp segfaults on generating 48402688-bit random number
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `gmp'.
* Tom Womack [Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:39:37AM -]:
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
reassign 284978 gmp
* Tom Womack [Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:39:37AM -]:
I've just checked that this wasn't a stupid problem to do with missing
mpz_init() commands; if you insert
mpz_init(A); mpz_init(B); mpz_init(C);
before the first mpz_urandomb() call, it still segfaults in the same
Heh. I read that as histrionic. Twice.
b.
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 09:49:57AM +, Will Newton wrote:
[snip]
Not to point out the obvious, but foul language is dependant on the
language you speak, so most countries are unlikely to be offended by
the Linux kernel.
Not to point out the obvious, but what is pornographic is dependant
on
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:42:57PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Adrian von Bidder dijo [Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:38:10PM +0100]:
we don't exactly have a strong history of being able to pull off
timely releases
Did Debian even try?
I didn't follow the woody release too closely, being a
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 01:24:32PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
On Saturday 11 December 2004 01:13, Rich Walker wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Non-US exists because export of strong crypto from the US is an
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 09, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been thinking about the blob problem for a while. I propose to
remove blobs from the
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 15:21 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 09, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Dan Jacobson wrote:
Say, perhaps a Date: field could be added to Packages files.
I mean even dog food has the date stamped on it these days.
Even my crumby message has a Date: field.
On Saturday 11 December 2004 14:28, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 01:24:32PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
On Saturday 11 December 2004 01:13, Rich Walker wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3]
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040717 15:55]:
[AMD64 situation]
As to the
technical questions ftpmaster wants to raise, I'm quite disappointed
that they have not been posted yet because I was promised at DebConf
that
On Dec 10, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may want to take a look at debian-legal, because some people there
think that even free drivers for hardware devices which need an
externally loaded firmware are not acceptable for main.
I presume you're referring to drivers which are
On Dec 11, Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it made any sense at all for a mainboard's BIOS to loaded by the
Linux kernel at boot time with a non-free firmware blob, the current
consensus (on debian-legal anyway) seems to be that Debian would not
support it. Period. The drivers for
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the GPL says so. Distribution of firmware binaries under GPL is
just not legal.
I do not believe that this is obvious. I understand that FSF disagrees,
and considers firmwares to be just data.
For 99% it doesn't have any effect.
Hello.
Paul Hampson:
The email address isn't important, since
that has to be a subset of ASCII anyway.
Are the Unicode-encoded domain names
supported in (modern) browsers only?
I can surf to http://.pl/ (with, e.g., Firefox) - can I send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], or should I always use the
On Dec 11, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can surf to http://?.pl/ (with, e.g., Firefox) - can I send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], or should I always use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] equivalent, as
the Unicode in domain names is restricted to WWW only?
It depends on your MUA. With
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the GPL says so. Distribution of firmware binaries under GPL is
just not legal.
I do not believe that this is obvious. I understand that FSF disagrees,
and considers firmwares to be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 10, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may want to take a look at debian-legal, because some people there
think that even free drivers for hardware devices which need an
externally loaded firmware are not acceptable for main.
I
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-11 15:17]:
Is there any progress on this issue?
This seems to be one of your unfrozen mails (1. Aug, huh?). But it is
still as valid as back then.
My recollection is that all technical concerns were addressed and that
the port would go in
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:08:12 +0100, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:
Hello.
Paul Hampson:
The email address isn't important, since
that has to be a subset of ASCII anyway.
Are the Unicode-encoded domain names
supported in (modern) browsers only?
I can surf to http://.pl/ (with,
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:36:21AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
In addition, we have at least two other machines which are available
to developers:
pergolesi.debian.org -- admin is debian-admin (and all developers have
accounts already)
Currently, this machine is
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: kwirelessmonitor
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.example.org/
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
Description : KWirelessMonitor is a small KDE application
El sb, 11-12-2004 a las 17:39 +0100, Marcin Orlowski escribi:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: kwirelessmonitor
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.example.org/
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X,
Hello Marcin,
* Marcin Orlowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-11 18:12]:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: kwirelessmonitor
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.example.org/
* License : (GPL, LGPL,
Perhaps a stupid question because I do not understand all this menu stuff:
Would this (together with Gnome 2.8) fix the user menus in Gnome???
This would be reall great for Sarge release!
No, this is about fixing the available session types in gdm and kdm.
*/ Christoffer Sawicki [EMAIL
Hi! The es_ES translation is packaged in a separate package, because we
uploaded it before the mozilla-firefox-locale-all was ready.
The next version of mozilla-firefox-locale-all will also include es_ES
translation.
Regards,
César
El Martes 07 Diciembre 2004 14:57, Javier
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:49:48PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 11, Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it made any sense at all for a mainboard's BIOS to loaded by the
Linux kernel at boot time with a non-free firmware blob, the current
consensus (on debian-legal anyway) seems
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:07:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I'm concerned, distribution of the firmware is the
manufacturer's realm. Whether the manufacturer distributes it on an
EPROM on the device itself, or on a CD shipped with
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 11:00 -0800, Brian Nelson a écrit :
You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
debian-legal. All other participants argue for non-free-firmware-using
drivers going in contrib.
Do they?
Also, the current practice already is moving in this
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:36:21AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
In addition, we have at least two other machines which are available
to developers:
pergolesi.debian.org -- admin is debian-admin (and all developers have
Bug #270388 regards the cedet-common package breaking emacs -batch. A
proposed fix in the bug report is for cedet-common to Pre-Depend on emacs21
| emacsen instead of depending on it.
An NMU based on this proposed fix has already been uploaded to the DELAYED
queue by Henning Glawe without first
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 11 d?cembre 2004 ? 11:00 -0800, Brian Nelson a ?crit :
You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
debian-legal. All other participants argue for non-free-firmware-using
drivers going in
Adam Heath wrote:
Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
Ie, multiple input methods: .deb, .rpm, filesystem
filter mode: standard tar output
output mode: filesystem, .deb, .rpm
Repacking
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
It's hardly that. We distribute only free software, that's our rule.
The rest, as you say, is for the manufacturer and the user to work
out, but we disvalue non-free software, and so we don't distribute
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:50:44AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
It's hardly that. We distribute only free software, that's our rule.
The rest, as you say, is for the manufacturer and the user
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You say they should go into contrib because they depend on non-free
software. However, *all* device drivers depend on non-free software.
Why does it matter if that non-free stuff is stored on the device itself
or is loaded externally?
Because if it
One of my packages, xfonts-kapl, installs fonts to usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts, as
it should, according to policy 11.8.5. I get a lintian warning that nothing
should install to /usr/X11R6/lib unless it uses imake, and that is just
reflecting policy 11.8.7. Seems like those two section contradict each
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 11:44 -0800, Brian Nelson a écrit :
For a single package that won't work without the binary blob, that's a
good policy.
It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
Virtually *all* device drivers in existance require a binary blob to
work. It's up
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 11 d?cembre 2004 ? 11:00 -0800, Brian Nelson a ?crit :
You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
debian-legal. All other participants argue for
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:50:44AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
It's hardly that. We distribute only free software, that's our rule.
The rest, as you
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because if it were stored on the device itself, and always packaged
with the device, then there *still* wouldn't be a dependency, because
all owners of the hardware would already have the firmware.
In most cases, the owner of the device will
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:07:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I'm concerned, distribution of the firmware is the
manufacturer's realm. Whether the manufacturer distributes it on an
EPROM on
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-11 15:17]:
Is there any progress on this issue?
This seems to be one of your unfrozen mails (1. Aug, huh?). But it is
still as valid as back then.
My recollection is that
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You aren't reading what I've written. Virtually 100% of firmware
out there (included on the device or loaded externally) is non-free. By
your reasoning, the entire kernel should be moved to contrib since no
free
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your case of hardware wich already includes firmware is totaly
irelevant since Debian does not distributes hardware, does not even
stand for free hardware nor do debs have to depend on hardware.
And why it should be different if that
On Dec 11, Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
debian-legal.
No, others did too, even if most of them did not bother arguing to death
like I'm doing.
Also, the current practice already is moving in this direction. For
On Dec 11, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You only see it as inconsistent because you think the relevant
consideration is do we support this hardware, and you don't care how
we support it. Most of us *do* care; we support it provided we can do
so without distributing non-free
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Think of it this way. For the card with the built-in firmware, the
driver does not depend on any additional packages or software
distribution to work. By contrast, for the card with the separate
firmware, the driver *does* depend on that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your case of hardware wich already includes firmware is totaly
irelevant since Debian does not distributes hardware, does not even
stand for free hardware nor do debs have to depend on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 11, Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
debian-legal.
No, others did too, even if most of them did not bother arguing to death
like I'm doing.
Please continue your
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Think of it this way. For the card with the built-in firmware, the
driver does not depend on any additional packages or software
distribution to work. By contrast, for the card with the separate
firmware, the
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 13:45 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Please continue your argument on debian-legal. NOT HERE.
Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
DFSG-freeness of these firmwares is pretty clear.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When the firmware is burned into the device, the user is prevented
from modifying it in a rather more drastic and permanent fashion than
when the restrictions are a matter of missing code or permissions.
Sure, but that's not the point. If someone
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le samedi 11 dcembre 2004 13:45 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a crit :
Please continue your argument on debian-legal. NOT HERE.
Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
DFSG-freeness of these firmwares is pretty clear.
Then
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 13:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
DFSG-freeness of these firmwares is pretty clear.
Then it doesn't go anywhere. It certainly isn't for debian-devel.
Of course it is. This is about how
(Please try to not Cc me on every reply. My messages even contain a
Mail-Followup-To header.)
On Dec 11, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why it should be different if that firmware is distributed by the
manufacturer on a CD instead of a flash EPROM chip?
Because in that
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know about no drivers which are useless without a non-free firmware,
while I know about a huge number of hardware devices which are useless
without a non-free firmware.
So the drivers without the firmware are usefull (i.e. make
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe that this is obvious. I understand that FSF disagrees,
and considers firmwares to be just data.
Would you accept a patch for ppp of the form:
char data[] = { 0x17, 0x23, 0x42, ...};
...
*(int (*)(int))data(fd);
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le samedi 11 dcembre 2004 13:51 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a crit :
Why should this go on debian-legal? I think the legal status and
DFSG-freeness of these firmwares is pretty clear.
Then it doesn't go anywhere. It certainly isn't for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
(Please try to not Cc me on every reply. My messages even contain a
Mail-Followup-To header.)
On Dec 11, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why it should be different if that firmware is distributed by the
manufacturer on a CD
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would make more sense if I sent it to the right list, really. Sorry
about that.
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
debian-legal. All other participants argue for
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With drivers that load external firmware files this split is possible
leaving the driver in main inside the kernel and the non DFSG free
firmware in non-free.
This argument suggests that we can shift drivers from contrib to main
simply by turning
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's pretend that Debian actually has a significant amount of leverage
on this sort of issue, and that vendors see their drivers appearing in
contrib and want to do something about it. They /could/ open the
firmware and provide a toolchain for it.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This argument suggests that we can shift drivers from contrib to main
simply by turning them into kernel patches and getting them included in
the stock kernel. This seems, uh, odd.
That's our policy. Every policy will have curious corner cases.
On Dec 11, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All hardware depends on non-free software. If you want to lobby for all
hardware to be free, including the firmware/BIOS/whatever, then fine.
That's a noble war to wage and I'd support your efforts.
Really? Will you support it in
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The dependency still exists - it just isn't expressed within the terms
of our package management system. I am entirely happy to describe this
distinction as arbitrary.
And yet, in this case the
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
And yet, in this case the non-freeness of the software isn't hurting
the user. The point isn't whether the firmware exists, the point is
whether the user is being prevented from modifying it by licensing or
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, but it does. Having the source code to the firmware of my DVD drive
would allow me to remove some silly restrictions. I've even got software
that would allow me to reflash it. Now, you could make the argument that
if I bought the DVD drive then
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 21:47 +, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With drivers that load external firmware files this split is possible
leaving the driver in main inside the kernel and the non DFSG free
firmware in non-free.
This argument
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 21:51 +0200, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
Adam Heath wrote:
Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
Ie, multiple input methods: .deb, .rpm, filesystem
filter
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because we have chosen a limited set of goals. We are for free
software, not Curing All The World's Ills. There is nothing
hypocritical about Debian deciding to attack one problem (non-free
software) without attacking a different problem
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: unlzx
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?unlzx
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
Description : unarchiver for *.lzx archives
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: undms
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Tritscher)
* URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?undms
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
Description : unpacks DMS (Disk
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This argument suggests that we can shift drivers from contrib to main
simply by turning them into kernel patches and getting them included in
the stock kernel. This seems, uh, odd.
That's our policy.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:53:10PM +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: unlzx
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?unlzx
* License : (GPL,
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:07:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I'm concerned, distribution of the firmware is the
manufacturer's realm. Whether
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 11 d=E9cembre 2004 =E0 21:47 +, Matthew Garrett a =E9crit :
We put it in contrib
so that people know that by using this software, they will also have to
use non-free code. This is less obvious for drivers that use firmware in
flash, but
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because we have chosen a limited set of goals. We are for free
software, not Curing All The World's Ills. There is nothing
hypocritical about Debian deciding to attack one problem (non-free
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It also means that I can upload a kernel image that contains all these
drivers, ensure that it's ABI compatible with the official kernels,
and then build udebs containing the firmware-requiring drivers. These
could then be grabbed by d-i. The drivers
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 11:44 -0800, Brian Nelson a écrit :
For a single package that won't work without the binary blob, that's a
good policy.
It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
Virtually *all* device drivers in
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:44:54 +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: undms
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Tritscher)
* URL : http://ftp.uni-paderborn.de/aminetbin/find?undms
* License :
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:37:01PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:53:10PM +0100, Marcin Orlowski wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: unlzx
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL :
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
