Hello, On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:45:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to know > why you seconded this. What we want to archive, is release etch in time, being installable on all hardware supported upstream. From the discussion about this amendment, I understood this is being covered here, so I think this is a good compromise. Indeed this is a compromise, and everyone needs to make a step towards the others: those of us concerned about usability and the needs of our users will have to give up firmware blobs which are obviously not distributable - even upstream before the release can happen, while those of us concerned about the freeness of the software will have to give up a bit of freeness in the linux-2.6 package for the sake of a release on December, 4th. The alternative is simple: We patch all drivers and fix d-i to include udebs from non-free, and delay the release indefinitely until this is done. I obviously prefer the compromise, I am strictly against breaking 50+ drivers before having discussed every single one with the corresponding vendor and upstream maintainer, seeking a global solution. Best regards Frederik Schueler -- ENOSIG
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature