[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: nvidia-graphics-drivers in DLA needed?

Hi,
LTS does support a few non-free packages following sponsors requests, such as 'firmware-nonfree' or 'unrar-nonfree'.
Also, the list of supported packages is currently built from curated lists of installed packages provided from the sponsors. One limitation is that the list needs to be refreshed and I believe Freexian is currently asking sponsors to provide up-to-date lists of packages. Another limitation is that some related packages are implicitly supported, see for instance Markus' ELTS work 'extra-packages-to-support' about embedded package (private repo).
Consequently it looks like nvidia-graphics-drivers and nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-390xx can be fixed through LTS as related packages (as explained by Markus below), though maybe not with high priority. They probably shouldn't be explicitly referenced in packages-to-support since there's no direct/paid sponsorship on them. nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-340xx (not 390xx) can't be fixed because it isn't supported upstream anymore, we can keep <ignore>-ing its CVEs.
@Ola I'm not sure what documentation you're referring to that point you to a different conclusion. Typically I don't think we forbid non-free uploads, but users shouldn't expect us to support them either (as in stable).
I realize that this makes nvidia triaging dependent on the LTS contributors' collective memory and personal initiative, so maybe this should be more formally decided and documented. I personally don't particularly wish to involve myself with non-free packages. Maybe you can coordinate with Markus and/or open a ticket to make sure this clarification happen? 

Cheers!
Sylvain Beucler
Debian LTS Team

On 28/12/2022 23:45, Ola Lundqvist wrote:

Hi fellow LTS developers
As you can see below I had a question to Markus and he answered with very good information.
My question to you all is whether we should add the nvidia-graphics-drivers packages to the "packages-to-support" list or if we should document this in some other way? Based on the documentation I had at hand I did not draw the same conclusion as Markus did and I think maybe we should change the documentation so I could draw that conclusion. 

Or have I missed something regarding the documentation we have?
Or is it so that we should in fact not support the nvidia-graphics-dirvers packages? 

Cheers

// Ola
On Wed, 28 Dec 2022 at 00:22, Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org <mailto:apo@debian.org>> wrote: 

    Hi Ola,

    Am Dienstag, dem 27.12.2022 um 23:48 +0100 schrieb Ola Lundqvist:
     > Hi Markus
     >
     > When triaging nvidia-graphics-drivers CVEs I realized that you
    had added
     > nvidia-graphics-drivers to dla-needed.txt. My understanding is
    that packages
     > in non-free are not supported unless explicitly mentioned in
    packages-to-
     > support file.
     >
     > The nvidia-graphics-drivers package(s) is not in packages-to-support.
     >
     > So therefore I'm asking whether adding the package was a mistake
    or if I have
     > missed something?


    I believe nvidia drivers are still supported in LTS because at least
    some
    nvidia packages are listed in packages-to-support like
    nvidia-modprobe or
    nvidia-settings. In addition I had uploaded a new
    nvidia-graphics-drivers
    package back in January 2022 [1] and I think nothing has changed
    back then. In
    general we even support non-free packages in LTS if the package is quite
    important like a driver. Nvidia drivers fits perfectly here. I'm
    more reluctant
    with leaf packages like otrs2 (because of the non-free Javascript)
    but Nvidia
    drivers are still important for many users these days. In short you
    don't have
    to worry about Nvidia drivers in LTS because this is something we try to
    support.

    [1]
    https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2022/01/msg00013.html
    <https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2022/01/msg00013.html>
Reply to: