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

Re: LCC and blobs

I demand that Glenn Maynard may or may not have written...

> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 06:22:20PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 01:48:12AM +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
>> [fetching firmware on finding hardware which needs it: wget or packaged?]
>>>> Fetch every time and fetch once. That looks like a difference to me...
>>> How could "fetch every time" possibly be acceptable to the SC when "fetch
>>> once" is not? Are you saying that the "rancid-installer" package could go
>>> in main, if it re-downloaded and reinstalled the program every time it
>>> was used?  Of course not--there is no difference to the SC.
>> I don't believe that I've made any comments about freeness of the firmware
>> installer package (though I've definitely said things about kernel modules
>> for devices which, to be useful, require firmware uploads). I merely
>> consider fetch-every-time to be broken (and you can add "firmware no
>> longer available for download" to the list of reasons).

> Since this is a discussion of freeness and SC#1, it's differences in
> freeness that are relevant here.  In response to "no difference: contrib at
> best", you said "that looks like a difference", which certainly looks like
> a comment on freeness.

It looked to me like you were saying that there was no difference between
fetching always and fetching once. ISTM (now) that you've removed too much
and I've removed not enough.

> (Unless you do have something to say about freeness, let's let this
> subthread die; [...])

I could say something, but I think that in the general case, it wouldn't add
to what has already been said. In the specific cases, well, let's wait for
them to be mentioned :-)

>> They were relevant to the text which you *didn't* snip. You should have
>> summarised them or left them in place.

>> And you've not marked where you've removed text :-\

> When I think some indication of removal is useful, I mark it with a blank
> line between quotes, instead of ">"; this is clear enough, since the full
> text is always available.

... but said full text may not have been received locally, and the reader may
be offline - in which case, how is he meant to distinguish between your blank
line and a blank line left by the original author and possibly devoid of
quote indication due to its having been removed because the line was
otherwise blank?

> All text in all messages is relevant to other text; not removing text which
> is relevant to some other quote would mean never removing anything. [...]

Degrees of relevance? (Probably best to let that lie.)

| Darren Salt   | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington,
| woody, sarge, | youmustbejoking  | Northumberland
| RISC OS       | demon co uk      | Toon Army
|   Let's keep the pound sterling

If I send this, does that mean that you'll read it?

Reply to: