[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:56:23PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:25:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> No, it doesn't.
>> Your words may cover where those packages are *today*,
>> but they most likely will *not* be in "non-free" when we come to make
>> the changes. "non-free-firmware" != "non-free".
>I understood that part.
>> Please tweak your
>> wording to be more flexible and cover what we're aiming to do.
>I think we have a different view on which proposal is the most flexible. And I
>understand that you want my proposal to cover what you are aiming at.

Bart, I genuinely don't understand why you're so wedded to this
specific wording even after multiple people have tried to explain the
problems they see here. Do you have a particular beef with the
non-free-firmware section?

As written, I believe your ballot option will cause more confusion and
problems down the line. Therefore, regretfully I have to withdraw my
seconding of your ballot option.

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
  Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there
  must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the
  far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled
  knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony DeBoer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: