Re: Proposal - Amendment - allow hardware support from non-free into the debian system
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:53:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> > Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think we
> > should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
> > represent most opinions, and work on polishing their wordings instead of
> > everyone proposing their pet proposal.
>
> I agree, but it's probably inevitable because Steve Langasek made
> this a compound proposal, mixing issues, and there are many different
> combinations which would resolve it. Also, our voting is clone-proof,
> so hopefully it won't damage the chances of finding the best possible
> solution. Even so, this option is quite different to the others so far.
Please read my call for a vote following Frederik's proposal, which Steve said
he may retire his proposal in favour of it.
> [...]
> > Why do you mention the admin section of the non-free archive ? I mean,
> > sections are mostly obsolet with the new pool structure, and it is not clear
> > what is meant here.
>
> I mean packages with a Section: control field of non-free/admin. Even if
> it's mostly obsolete, ftpmasters and others are still regulating it, yes?
I mean, why non-free/admin and not others ? Why not clearly defining what is
covered and what not. why not non-free/base (the kernel being in base), and
what if we reorganise sections later on.
> > If this is clarified, i would second your proposal.
>
> Hope that's sufficient clarification. Would you second it whether or not I
> drop the word 'vital' from it?
Not really, see above. and yes, if you drop vital, i would do the same.
> [...]
> > Notice that the split to non-free will no more happen for etch, i think it is
> > doubtful that any other issue will come of those GRs.
>
> Not 100% sure what you mean, but I think this has changed recently and I hope
> it's not set in stone.
It is too late for etch, whatever happens or not.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: