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

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 06:15:57PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> What are the release and ftp team supposed to do here? Sure, I can
> type in "dak rm linux-2.6" and see what happens

Move it to non-free.  Then have it go to NEW the next time it's uploaded,
and go through the usual DFSG-ness check (but this time with aid, since
you can check the BTS for known issues).

> They are RC, if you did not prepare an NMU should ask yourself why you
> did not and stop pretending that it is the release or ftp team's
> responsibility to fix the RC bugs that you are not fixing.

The maintainers pretend that the only acceptable fix is one that:

  - Implements userland load (with the firmware blob added to non-free).
  - Has been tested on the affected hardware.

Since I have interest in the Social Contract but not in supporting non-free
stuff, I've only been working on #494010 [1] and packaged the necessary
utility [2] that would assemble the (now free) firmware.

For the rest, if I get a *firm* [3] assertion that I may NMU to fix it, you
can count on it that I would NMU by removing all the blobs and replace the
functions that process them with stubs.  Then again, the maintainers don't
want that.  Not my fault.

So, everyone stop complaining that I don't do the work.  I already do much
more than I am morally obligued to.

[1] with much appreciated help/advice from Ben Hutchings
[2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/a56_1.3-1.html btw, would be really nice
    if it can be fast-tracked.
[3] that means either sanctioned by the maintainers or by the DPL

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: