Re: kernel/d-i/security/release meeting at DebConf6
[ keeping the cross-post and please keep it cross-posted ]
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 01:09:45PM -0500, dann frazier wrote:
> hey,
> Frans Pop assembled an informal BoF at DebConf to discuss cross-team
> issues related to the kernel[1].
>
> We discussed the following topics:
<snip/>
> * Non-free modules + firmware
> * External module packages
> Non-free modules + firmware
> ---------------------------
> It was noted that Bastian Blank is working on splitting non-free
> modules out of main into their own source package.
>
> frans> It should happen pretty soon; we need the modules in non-free before
> we do the d-i work; d-i will probably ask for an exception so that
> d-i can install them as though they were in main because frans thinks
> we won't have time for that (modules really won't be in main)
>
> This means that non-free modules will be on installer cds. The needed
> exception would be to allow etch to be used as a transition period.
>
> manoj> this isn't a release management decision, we don't want another GR
> aba> a GR would be time consuming
>
> manoj> what about a free and a non-free installer image, where the non-free
> installer is in the non-free section
What work is done to get the Linux kernel completely libre?
Who is talking with hardware manufactures to GPL their code?
> aba> 2-3 different options
> * images like today w/ non-free udebs
> * only put the modules on non-free, make users pick them up
> * dropping support for devices that require non-free fw completely
>
> manoj> only option (for permitting non-free modules on the etch
> installer) is a gr to once again modify our social contract
>
> suggestion was made to have users "click-through" to opt-in to use non-free
> firmware. manoj believes this is still a violation of the social contract
> and will require a GR (because the non-free modules would still be on
> the media)
>
> manoj> you can ask for an official interpretation of the social contract
> from the project secretary.
>
> manoj suggests two different installers, but joeyh is concerned over additional
> maintenance/support
>
> The deliver modules/users opt-in approach would give us enough time,
> but requires a GR.
>
> joeyh> maybe keep it as a separate image that can be combined by the user,
> problem is that the solution varies with each installation method
> floppy install needs another floppy; netboot needs another layered
> initramfs
>
> joeyh> multi-sessions could be used for cd installs
>
> In conclusion, we believe the following options exist:
> a) debian doesn't support this hardware
> b) GR to allow combining
> c) make users combine
>
>
> External module packages
> ------------------------
> Its believed that if we solve the non-free external module package
> issue, we will also have solved this one.
Beside "non-free" will the external module package help
hardware manufactures to get their libre driver in Debian
> - divergence between official kernel packaging and kernel-package (k-p)
>
> The /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build symlink issue was introduced by
> Manoj. The attendees agreed to move this to a discussion thread on
> debian-kernel, in probably a week's time.
Please post the outcome also to debian-boot
Cheers
Geert Stappers
> [1] http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20060517.065113.4f39d60e.en.html
Reply to: