Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
#include <hallo.h>
* Joey Hess [Wed, Aug 23 2006, 02:15:59PM]:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If it makes sense, what are the major difficulties/inconveniences/whatever
> > that were found in having this happen for etch, that will need to be
> > addressed to achieve an etch+1 release that's both useful and convenient
> > for both people who need/want non-free things, and those who want a
> > completely free system?
>
> From the d-i side, the major difficulties are:
Thanks for your explanation. The legitimation for most of the stupid
discussion parts seems to be the assumption that there is no other way
for dealing with firmware but adding it to main.
And let me say sorry if I sound too offensive in the following text.
> b. CD install where the CD, disk, NIC, etc need non-free firmware.
> Possible approaches include:
> i. Provide some way for the user to remaster the CD.
> * Too hard for most users.
> * If the CD drive itself needs non-free firmware they will
> need to modify the initrd too, which gets into the really
> hard territory.
I would say, we shold provide at least one way for installation for a
loadable-firmware poisoned system. We can construct any arbitrary
usecase where loadable firmware is involved at the complexity of the
support method will increase more and more. We have to make a cut
somewhere and say that this way is supported and this way isn't.
Note that most system vendors are not stupid, and most hardware
manufacturers are not either. Droping legacy support already bites MS
Windows users since nowadays many have to install a floppy drive again
simply because the installer does not support SATA drives.
Which means: we should assume that there is at least one way to fetch
the additional data. I assumed that it would be possible with d-i to add
custom sources, and even if it isn't it should not be the hardest thing
to do.
> * Assumes that the drivers for the that don't need non-free
> firmware and that the machine supports floppy, usb or network.
> iiii. Ship a separate non-free CD.
> * Which then becomes the one everyone uses because it works, as
> with the non-free netboot image above.
And why not? The only severe reason is "free version will get less
testing" but when the installer is effectively the same with just some
extra code parts enabled, this would not make a significant difference.
> * Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements.
How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think there is a plenty of space on the
non-free CD for those, together with udebs and boot images.
> Also, in the case of a CD that needs non-free firmware, we have to
> provide the installer with a way to get not just udebs for the
> firmware, but debs for it, for the installed system. This
> complicates all of the above approaches significantly.
Fetching udebs from multiple sources is a feature that should be
implemented anyway.
Eduard.
--
<DeVries> Wann kommt Debian3.0? Jemand n ungefähres oder genaues Datum parat?
<Alfie> DeVries: Wenn es fertig ist.
<Falky> dwVries wenn es fertig ist
<weasel> DeVries: ziemlich genau dann, wenn es fertig ist.
Reply to: