Jeremie Koenig wrote: > The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the "d-i build-depends on > miboot, which is in contrib", and try to find a better solution for next > releases. This is the first I've heard of this. Has the sarge-ignore status of the GFDL docs really created such a slippery slope? I doubt it. Sven Luther wrote: > Well, the solution would be to force add the miboot stuff to the > debian-installer svn tree, and use it to build. This would make > debian-installer contrib/non-free though, which is why i asked for > debain-legal help. > > Note that one solution for this would be to make an exception for such > bootloader stuff, and have them in the debian-installer SVN, in a > boot-loader directory or something, and use them directly. This will not > break autobuild, and everything would be fine, except when you upload > said stuff to main. That would violate the TOS for alioth. Do not check non-free code into the d-i subversion repository. You are free to set up your own fork of the debian-installer package, call it "debian-installer-non-free", and upload it to non-free or contrib, and arrange to build the non-free boot images from it. That would be one way. Another way might be to use the debian-installer package to build images with a dummy, free boot loader (all zero's, say), and provide a third-party tool to make the resulting images really bootable, by applying the real boot loader to them. The resulting images would not be official d-i images, but I think it would be ok to include the non-bootable ones in the archive, with an appropriate bug filed on d-i about their non-bootable status. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature