Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
> several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
> in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
> redistributable firmware can belong in firmware-nonfree.
Do we have an ironclad commitment to not add any additional non-DFSG
firmware, period, no matter what? I would accept a compromise which
guaranteed an increasing slope. But not a back-and-forth thing. Your
reply focuses on regression issues, so is that really sufficient? We
guarantee that, say, there will always be *less* non-DFSG firmware in
each release, and we guarantee that there will never be *new* non-DFSG
> If the NMU involves removing support for hardware, then no, the NMU's
> solution would be in my opinion unacceptable, and hopefully enough
> people agree that it would be rejected.
Thought so. So the claim that "nobody is standing in the way" was
simply false. People are standing in the way of a simple fix for a
simple bug, and insisting on a more complex fix. I agree completely
that the more complex fix is better, but it is simply not true that
nobody is standing in the way of a fix. Rather, they have declared that
only one sort of fix is tolerable, and mostly refused to discuss the