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

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:16:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > Second: this release contains ALL binary firmware blobs shipped 
> > upstream, even those we kept pruning since the day Herbert Xu removed 
> > them the first time in 2004. 
> What in the world?  Why would you do that anyway?

Because the infrastructure for supporting the users needing them is not yet in
place, and won't be for etch ? 

Also, because the actual pruning was arbitrary and kindof broken, 

> > Initially, we wanted to wait for a positive GR vote outcome before doing 
> > this step, but as every day existing GR proposals are changed and new ones 
> > made, this seems to be going to be delayed indefinitely, which is not 
> > acceptable from a release point of view.
> Neither is introducing regressions in the freeness of our kernel packages
> relative to sarge.  Indeed, taking such a step is likely to lead many voters
> to think that the only way to prevent the kernel team from filling our
> kernel packages with as much non-free code as they can stuff into it is by
> voting down any GRs that would relax our stance on firmware.  *THAT* would
> cause release delays.

There won't be any GR, there will be a new pet proposal until forever, and
endless discussions as we start recalling the DPL, and bashing on the
secretary and what not.

It is not sane to hold a vote over technical issues, or even ideological
issues, as long as such bullshit is going on.

Also, it is not a regression, it is a step back to better jump, the plan is to
work, together with upstream and together with the hardware vendors over
licencing, to solve this issue as it should, and not with interim technical
hacks as we currently do.

I personally will stand behind this, and i think Frederik also expressed some
commitment in that direction in the above, and i believe strongly that the
non-free-removal supporters will see this commitment like it is, and support
us with it.

> > If the release and debian-installer teams don't object, we will upload 
> > an unpruned linux-2.6 2.6.18-1 to unstable today.
> I do object to the un-pruning of non-free material from the kernel packages
> without giving the project a chance first to consider how this changes the
> status wrt the DFSG.  In particular, this totally undermines any claim that
> Debian is asymptotically approaching DFSG compliance in its releases.

Like said, a step back to better jump.

> Is there at least a list somewhere of what these re-added bits are?

Sure :


May not apply to 2.6.18 though, is somewhat broken, and not complete, but that
is what we used to use.


Sven Luther

Reply to: