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

Re: kernel/d-i/security/release meeting at DebConf6

 [ keeping the cross-post and please keep it cross-posted ]

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 01:09:45PM -0500, dann frazier wrote:
> hey,
>   Frans Pop assembled an informal BoF at DebConf to discuss cross-team
> issues related to the kernel[1].
> We discussed the following topics:
>  * Non-free modules + firmware
>  * External module packages
> Non-free modules + firmware
> ---------------------------
> It was noted that Bastian Blank is working on splitting non-free
> modules out of main into their own source package.
> frans> It should happen pretty soon; we need the modules in non-free before
>        we do the d-i work; d-i will probably ask for an exception so that
>        d-i can install them as though they were in main because frans thinks
>        we won't have time for that (modules really won't be in main)
> This means that non-free modules will be on installer cds.  The needed
> exception would be to allow etch to be used as a transition period.
> manoj> this isn't a release management decision, we don't want another GR
> aba> a GR would be time consuming
> manoj> what about a free and a non-free installer image, where the non-free
>        installer is in the non-free section

What work is done to get the Linux kernel completely libre?
Who is talking with hardware manufactures to GPL their code?

> aba> 2-3 different options
>      * images like today w/ non-free udebs
>      * only put the modules on non-free, make users pick them up
>      * dropping support for devices that require non-free fw completely
> manoj> only option (for permitting non-free modules on the etch
>        installer) is a gr to once again modify our social contract
> suggestion was made to have users "click-through" to opt-in to use non-free
> firmware.  manoj believes this is still a violation of the social contract
> and will require a GR (because the non-free modules would still be on
> the media)
> manoj> you can ask for an official interpretation of the social contract
>        from the project secretary.
> manoj suggests two different installers, but joeyh is concerned over additional
> maintenance/support
> The deliver modules/users opt-in approach would give us enough time,
> but requires a GR.
> joeyh> maybe keep it as a separate image that can be combined by the user,
>       problem is that the solution varies with each installation method
>       floppy install needs another floppy; netboot needs another layered
>       initramfs
> joeyh> multi-sessions could be used for cd installs
> In conclusion, we believe the following options exist:
>  a) debian doesn't support this hardware
>  b) GR to allow combining
>  c) make users combine
> External module packages
> ------------------------
> Its believed that if we solve the non-free external module package
> issue, we will also have solved this one.

Beside "non-free" will the external module package help
hardware manufactures to get their libre driver in Debian

> - divergence between official kernel packaging and kernel-package (k-p)
> The /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build symlink issue was introduced by
> Manoj.  The attendees agreed to move this to a discussion thread on
> debian-kernel, in probably a week's time.

Please post  the outcome also to debian-boot

Geert Stappers

> [1] http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20060517.065113.4f39d60e.en.html

Reply to: