Re: [PROPOSAL] Let's ship all firmwares included inthe pristine upstream kernel tarball in debian/etch.
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 07:58:24AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Frank Küster <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > this is at least clearly worded, unambiguous, and if it succeeds will
> > allow to release etch without delay (at least without delay because of
> > firmware problems).
> It seems this is not true (qlogic), and still might be "interpreted",
There is nothing we can do about qlogic, the d-i team has already decided they
will not support users needing it.
> namely as trying to force the teams and RM to include things they think
There is nothing we can do to force the RMs to do such, they already said that
they will not be held by it, and will still block distribution of things they
find undistributable (well, they and the ftp-masters).
Furthermore, the wording of the proposal "allow inclusion" means that we can
include all those firmwares, but by no means that we will or must. As such, it
perfectly allows to remove those firmwares the RM find non-distributable, and
allows for a technical decision to be taken by the RM team and the kernel team
(and to a lesser degree the ftp-masters),
> are undistributable. Furthermore, I see Sven's current actions and
> statements as being destructive only, and do not want to help with
No. I made this proposal, because Anthony asked for a vote to be held, and
Manoj abused his power to get the vote going, while he perfectly knew the
proposal at :
was still under discussion. This is especially bad, since as has been noted by
Steve's reply to the DPL, the current proposal doesn't allow for the
distribution of important drivers, like the tg3 one.
Furthermore, i have been trying since a couple of weeks to reach a consensual
solution, while getting destructive behaviour from those we need to reach a
consensus with, as well as intimidation on vairous irc channels.
I am hearthily sick of this, and i guess most of the folk following -vote is
also, so this minimal and clear proposal allows the discussion to end, while
at the same time allowing to get a good solution on the technical level and
out of -vote.
As such, i urge you to not revert your seconding, just because you believe i
am destructive, which i am not, especially as this has nothing whatsoever to
do with the sub-thread concerning frans insidious ad-hominem attack against