Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:25:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
<snip>
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
<snip>
(someone, I'm not sure who, wrote:)
>> > > Re-adding them at this stage
>> > > 1) is against the current social contract
>>
>> > Yes, but then so is shipping the firmware actually still in main,
>>
>> So two bugs is better than one?
>
> Yes, because re-adding the drivers which used to be pruned, allow a
> category of users to install, which they did not previously. Thus, your
> arithmetic is wrong, because you don't count the "can't install" bug, and
> if you do, it sorts out evenly, especially if you take in account that we
> put non-free software and users equally in the SC.
"Our users" cuts both ways. There are users who use Debian *because* the
contents of main are (supposed to be) 100% free. I'm one. The two users
complaining of Debian's "hypocrisy" on debian-legal recently are two more.
Undoubtedly there are others, probably including many DDs. Those users are
being mistreated in order to benefit some other users.
(In some cases, nonexistent users. drivers/net/dgrs "was killed in place
and never reached the market". No users were impacted by removing this
driver, and we know that for a fact. Why readd it?)
Meanwhile, "Debian will remain 100% free" doesn't really leave much room for
argument. "Our users" is a priority, as is "free software", but "Debian
will remain 100% free" is a *promise*.
<snip>
> Indeed, but then you also need to backport all the fixes that the kernel
> team will put in 2.6.18 to 2.6.17, fine sharing of effort. Did you not
> read Frederik's GR, where the kernel team states that kernel dev
> ressources are rare, which is why we request a waival of the requirement
> for etch, in order to be able to work on this issue in peace for etch+1,
To be honest, if the release team was clearly making progress on removing
the non-free firmware, you'd be a *lot* more likely to get a waiver.
A good start would be the tg3 patches. Reintroducing the dgrs driver,
which drives *no existing hardware at all*, would be a very bad move.
Today I sent an email asking upstream to remove dgrs based on its
uselessness; we'll see what happens.
> without having to deal with the two new GRs a week over highly emotional
> issues, not mentioning the remaining bullshit that is going on beside it
> (RM payement,
> duck stuff,
Duck stuff? Quack, Quack? <looks confused>
I have a wild turkey living in my front yard, but no ducks.
> DPL recall, assorted GRs for various stuff).
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
Reply to: