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

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

[Dropping -release from cc anyway; there's no possible reason this needs to
be cross-posted to 4 lists]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:58:31AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 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.

> > In the absence of GR, the current situation is that sourceless
> > firmwares are not allowed in main. This is the reason the RM
> > proposed this GR in the first place.

> The current consensus is that it is well among the power of the RMs to
> ignore a number of bugs for the sarge release, including this one.

I see no evidence that there is a consensus on this point.  Since it's the
RMs who have to make this decision to ignore these bugs, you're not going to
get very far if the RMs don't actually feel empowered to make this decision
on their own.

> > Re-adding them at this stage
> > 1) is against the current social contract

> Yes, but then so is shipping the firmware actually still in main,

So two bugs is better than one?

> and i guess one could evoke the "won't discriminate" clause of the

<sigh> That's not what the DFSG says.

> Now, as said, this is a step back to better jump, and the real solution on
> this is to follow on with what has been done (by upstream) on the qlogic
> drivers, whose firmware is actually already in non-free, even though d-i
> doesn't support it yet. This is an upstream work, and as thus will take time
> to come to debian, but we, the debian kernel team (or at least me and
> Frederik) take the engagement to work on this during etch+1 devel cycle.

If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
to sarge.  I don't think that's acceptable.  We obviously do have the means
to remove this particular subset of non-free firmware from main (technically
imperfect though it may be), and of the firmware that was removed for sarge
the only one that was important enough to get me glared at personally was
qla2xxx -- so what are these other already-removed firmwares that are so
important to have re-added now?  (I did ask for a list, which no one has
provided yet; I can't find the pruning script in the kernel team's svn
repo, or I would look it up myself.)

> But due to everyone (including you), trying to pull the glory to themselves,
> and proposing their pet GR to muddle the issue, without any respect for the
> GRs proposed previously, and because of the loophole in the constitution,

I don't believe there is any loophole there.  The constitution defines what
it means for an amendment to be accepted, and it does not apply to
additional related resolution proposals, it only applies to amendments to a
resolution that are *accepted by the proposer*.  Which means independent
draft proposals are not supposed to reset the minimum discussion period.
(FWIW, it took a hint from AJ for me to recognize that this is what the
constitution actually says, but Ian Jackson -- original author of the
constitution -- has recently confirmed this understanding.)

Anyway, I think we'd be able to get to the point of holding a vote much
sooner if we weren't having distracting side discussions like this one.  I
know it's sucking up time that *I* would rather be spending examining the
various resolutions that are already out there.

> So, given the defaillance of the GR system, there is no point in worrying
> about the vote or not, and always remember, that debian was at the base, and
> still is to a mesure, a system where those who do the work get to do the
> decision, so you know what you have to do if you want those firmwares not to
> be in main :)

Well, all /I/ have to do to keep the reintroduced firmware blobs from being
in etch is to freeze the linux-2.6 package at 2.6.17 :/

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: