Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 08:39:10PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> [snip]
> > > That would violate the TOS for alioth. Do not check non-free code into
> > > the d-i subversion repository.
> > 
> > Well, the main point is, can you really speak about code when you are
> > contemplating a 1k boot-sector, which is why i have CCed debian-legal,
> > but got no response yet.
> 
> It surely is code.

Yeah, but as said, a few rom calls nothing more. Probably less than the
total 1K used there.

> > Also, i wonder how free a free replacement could be, if in order to work
> > it would have to be exactly the same as the one in question here. Do we
> > really need to consider source code for this one ? And in this case,
> > what would the source code of a small binary sector look like ? 
> 
> A few lines of assembly, nearly indistinguishable from the
> disassembly.

Yeah. And with what will you write it then ? Do we have a toolchain
which generate mac system ressources ? What about using an hex editor as
assembler ? 

> > I thought that copyright mat not apply to such cases, where there is
> > only one way of making this kind of stuff work, and where the bit
> > sequence is accordying short.
> 
> It still does apply, but you aren't barred from writing a very
> similiar thing.

And if that similar thing end being bit for bit identic ? 

> > Again, i have no real idea if this applies here, which is why i asked
> > for advice on debian-legal, let's see what comes out of it.
> > 
> > Also, maybe we should remove d-i from main altogether, since it depends
> > on non-free code in the bios of your motherboard ? 
> 
> Please don't port flamewars from -devel to -boot. Thanks.

I don't read -devel since a few month, so you can't accuse me of that.
Still, it is very similar in nature, don't you think ? 

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Yeah, a loosy way though. Or do you think that we should have a
> > debian-installer-contrib for the other boot loader which can only be
> > built on the native OS of the hardware ? 
> 
> Either that, or find a way to build it with software from main.

Yeah, sure, whatever. This probably means that there will be no oldworld
pmac, and probably also no amiga and apus, full di support in debian
ever. No idea about the other more obscure arches.

But given the lection about pragmatism that guided the result of the
non-free vote, would it not be adviseable to make an exception here.

Hell, i am sure i can build this software with an hex editor alone, or
maybe a batched C program, no problem with that, do we really need a
fully fledged gcc->pmac boot sector cross compiler for it ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther