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

Re: can a kernel in main depend on firmware in non-free to work?

Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 22:10 -0200, Alexandre Oliva a écrit :
> > Because the kernel is perfectly usable without the firmwares.
> But how about the specific modules that require them, the ones that
> got this sub-thread started in the first place?  It doesn't make sense
> to me to frame the discussion in such terms as most of Linux is useful
> without the component's dependencies, when what we're talking about is
> the component, not the whole.

Whether they are plugins or modules or whatnot is irrelevant here. The
only thing that matters is package dependencies.

> There *is* reason to split the linux package, I thought that was
> beyond any doubt by now.  Debian isn't supposed to ship non-Free
> Software, and Linux does include non-Free firmwares.

And this has already been the case for long.

> The doubt is whether the split is going to stop at the firmwares, or
> also cover the modules that require the firmwares.

No, there is no doubt about that either. There is absolutely no need to
split these modules.

> > Does the kernel require the firmwares in non-free for execution?
> Portions of it do, for sure.

We don’t talk about portions, but about packages. The kernel package
does not require binary firmwares for execution.

> Could it be that convenience and limited interpretations of practical
> consequences of policies are turning against the actual policies and
> priorities?  It unfortunately looks like it from where I stand, but it
> could be that I'm just still missing something.  If so, please share
> your enlightenment.

It seems you are misunderstanding what contrib is for.

: :' :      We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'       We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-        our own. Resistance is futile.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: