Re: [YET-ANOTHER-AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:13:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Err, that is a regression from the current version. Option 3
> got dropped from what we have now.
Yeah, i took the first points from Frederik's original proposal, and missed
yours.
That said, i have some trouble with :
> | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in
> | the progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by
> | Debian relative to the Sarge release in Etch
Because the real situation is that there is overall progress, but i believe
there are individual regressions, because we re-added drivers which where
pruned in sarge, but which left the users without installation media and
kernel support, as no alternative was offered, which result in users needing
to self-build an upstream kernel, which in turn means there is regression in
freeness for their kernel over the debian one.
I believe this is the case for tg3 and acenic, not 100% sure though.
Furthermore, this statement contradicts what we are saying later on, with
regard to the categories of firmware we are keeping and which not, so i would
rather leave it away. The sarge pruning was not as well thought as what we
have done now.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: