On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 10:52:01AM +0200, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
5. transitional packages along with a helper package (that fails or
success during install) to prompt the user so they add non-free-firmware
section when needed.
Is there any reason why you are not considering 5.?
The
On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 12:26 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I heartily endorse ubuntu-release-upgrader, it has been useful in addressing
> uncounted upgrade issues over the years and I think something like this
> would be a nice addition to Debian as well. Two caveats:
That thing is actually
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 01:32:41PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-10-13 at 17:35 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > I'd prefer if we could make things work vs making things fail,
> > however loudly.
>
> There seem to be a few ways to deal with this transition:
(quotes reordered in Pauls
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 01:32:41PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> 4. Keep all non-free-firmware packages in non-free too. This would be
> backwards compatible, but may expose bugs in dak, debian-cd, apt and
> other tools, so IIRC this has been vetoed by the archive and CD teams.
> This also wouldn't
* Paul Wise [221014 01:35]:
> On Thu, 2022-10-13 at 17:35 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> > I'd prefer if we could make things work vs making things fail,
> > however loudly.
>
> There seem to be a few ways to deal with this transition:
>
> 2. Add some code somewhere to automatically modify
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 10:52:01AM +0200, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> El 14/10/22 a las 13:32, Paul Wise escribió:
> > On Thu, 2022-10-13 at 17:35 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >
> > > I'd prefer if we could make things work vs making things fail,
> > > however loudly.
> >
> > There seem to
El 14/10/22 a las 13:32, Paul Wise escribió:
> On Thu, 2022-10-13 at 17:35 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> > I'd prefer if we could make things work vs making things fail,
> > however loudly.
>
> There seem to be a few ways to deal with this transition:
>
> 1. Document it in the release notes
On Thu, 2022-10-13 at 17:35 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> I'd prefer if we could make things work vs making things fail,
> however loudly.
There seem to be a few ways to deal with this transition:
1. Document it in the release notes and let users handle it. This means
lots of users won't get
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 04:13:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> >> Maybe and idea would to do something like isa-support does for e.g
> >> sseX-support
> >> on CPUs
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > Maybe and idea would to do something like isa-support does for e.g
> > sseX-support
> > on CPUs that does not have that feature: It fails on installation with an
>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 05:17:59PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > > Maybe and idea would to do something like isa-support does for e.g
> > > sseX-support
> > > on
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
>> Maybe and idea would to do something like isa-support does for e.g
>> sseX-support
>> on CPUs that does not have that feature: It fails on installation with an
>>
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Maybe and idea would to do something like isa-support does for e.g
> sseX-support
> on CPUs that does not have that feature: It fails on installation with an
> debconf message, IIRC.
> So that would allow something like "new
El 06/10/22 a las 17:13, Tobias Frost escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:03:20PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 15:45:25 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 10:11:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > >On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 08:21:31PM
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:03:20PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 15:45:25 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 10:11:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > >On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 08:21:31PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 15:45:25 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 10:11:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 08:21:31PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 11:08:47AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> >> >On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 10:11:27PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 08:21:31PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 11:08:47AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
>> >On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 03:53:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 08:21:31PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 11:08:47AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 03:53:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> > What's the plan for
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 11:32 PM Santiago Ruano Rincón
wrote:
> > Can we have different versions in each section?
> >
> > + non-free/pkgA version~1
> > + non-free-firmware/pkgA version~2
>
> that wouldn't comply with the current policy:
>
El 03/10/22 a las 19:40, Shengjing Zhu escribió:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 7:31 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> >
> > 3 octobre 2022 11:11 "Santiago Ruano Rincón" a
> > écrit:
> > > El 02/10/22 a las 20:42, Michael Biebl escribió:
> > >> Am 02.10.22 um 20:14 schrieb Luca Boccassi:
> > >> On
On 10/3/22 02:23, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 12:33:20AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo a écrit :
I can live with an APT hook warning me if I have non-free but not
non-free-firmware, but I would prefer to even do without that.
In addition, how about distributing the firmware in both
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 08:21:31PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Plus, as Shengjing Zhu points out: we already expect people to manage
the sources.list anyway on upgrades.
We also try to avoid silent install problems that might or might not
result in a system that doesn't boot properly.
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 12:26:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 03:53:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > >What's the plan for upgraded systems with an existing
> > >/etc/apt/sources.list.
> > >Will the new n-f-f section added on upgrades automatically(if non-free was
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 02:47:33PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Not even replace "stable/updates" with "stable-security" during the upgrade
> from buster to bullseye ?
Hmm I don't recall but I suppose it just wasn't very memorable to do it.
At least it would have given an error fetching the
On 03/10/2022 at 01:00, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 08:21:31PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Plus, as Shengjing Zhu points out: we already expect people to manage
the sources.list anyway on upgrades.
People that just have 'stable' in their sources.list haven't had to
do
El 03/10/22 a las 11:31, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud escribió:
> 3 octobre 2022 11:11 "Santiago Ruano Rincón" a écrit:
> > El 02/10/22 a las 20:42, Michael Biebl escribió:
> >> Am 02.10.22 um 20:14 schrieb Luca Boccassi:
> >> On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 10:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> In Bullseye we
Steve McIntyre (2022-10-02):
> + ftpsync (?)
I don't think that's needed. Using buster's and more recently bullseye's
version, I have this locally:
drwxr-xr-x 4 mirror mirror 4096 Jul 19 04:16
/srv/mirrors/debian/dists/bookworm/non-free-firmware/by-hash/
which matches when dak's config
Colin Watson (2022-10-03):
> Done in debmirror 1:2.37. I guess we need to cherry-pick this to
> bullseye too? I know bullseye doesn't have non-free-firmware (which
> is fine, the new debmirror doesn't object), but most people running
> mirrors probably run stable rather than testing.
Thanks
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 03:27:36PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> * Check/add support for the non-free-firmware section in various
> places:
> + debmirror (?)
Done in debmirror 1:2.37. I guess we need to cherry-pick this to
bullseye too? I know bullseye doesn't have non-free-firmware (which
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 7:31 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> 3 octobre 2022 11:11 "Santiago Ruano Rincón" a écrit:
> > El 02/10/22 a las 20:42, Michael Biebl escribió:
> >> Am 02.10.22 um 20:14 schrieb Luca Boccassi:
> >> On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 10:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> In Bullseye
3 octobre 2022 11:11 "Santiago Ruano Rincón" a écrit:
> El 02/10/22 a las 20:42, Michael Biebl escribió:
>> Am 02.10.22 um 20:14 schrieb Luca Boccassi:
>> On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 10:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> In Bullseye we changed the name/syntax for the security repository, and
>> for that
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/2/22 22:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Michael Biebl writes:
> >
> > > The main difference is, that the renaming caused an error message by
> > > apt, so you knew something needed to be fixed.
> >
> > One could argue that
El 02/10/22 a las 20:42, Michael Biebl escribió:
>
> Am 02.10.22 um 20:14 schrieb Luca Boccassi:
> > On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 10:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > > will
> > > be very obvious. But if you currently have non-free configured but
> > > don't
> > > add the new firmware section,
Hi,
Le 03/10/2022 à 01:00, Lennart Sorensen a écrit :
[…]
I can't think of ever having had to add anything, only
change the release name.
You’ll change your mind when you’ll upgrade to stable.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes/ch-information#security-archive
Le Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 12:33:20AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo a écrit :
>
> I can live with an APT hook warning me if I have non-free but not
> non-free-firmware, but I would prefer to even do without that.
In addition, how about distributing the firmware in both 'non-free' and
'non-free-firmware' at
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 08:21:31PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Two things:
>
> 1. I'm worried what bugs we might expose by having packages be in two
> components at once.
> 2. I really don't like the idea of leaving two different
> configurations in the wild; it'll confuse people and
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 01:18:55AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> вс, 2 окт. 2022 г. в 22:36, Steve Langasek :
> > > So this is the one bit that I don't think we currently have a good
> > > answer for. We've never had a specific script to run on upgrades (like
> > > Ubuntu do), so this kind of
Hello,
вс, 2 окт. 2022 г. в 22:36, Steve Langasek :
>
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 03:53:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > >What's the plan for upgraded systems with an existing
> > >/etc/apt/sources.list.
> > >Will the new n-f-f section added on upgrades automatically(if non-free was
> >
Hi Steve,
On 10/2/22 21:26, Steve Langasek wrote:
I heartily endorse ubuntu-release-upgrader, it has been useful in addressing
uncounted upgrade issues over the years and I think something like this
would be a nice addition to Debian as well. Two caveats:
- Despite this being the sanctioned
On 10/2/22 22:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
Michael Biebl writes:
The main difference is, that the renaming caused an error message by
apt, so you knew something needed to be fixed.
One could argue that having non-free but not non-free-firmware is
sufficiently strange that it would be worth a
Michael Biebl writes:
> The main difference is, that the renaming caused an error message by
> apt, so you knew something needed to be fixed.
One could argue that having non-free but not non-free-firmware is
sufficiently strange that it would be worth a suppressable apt warning
(that you could
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 03:53:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >What's the plan for upgraded systems with an existing /etc/apt/sources.list.
> >Will the new n-f-f section added on upgrades automatically(if non-free was
> >enabled before)?
> So this is the one bit that I don't think we
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 11:08:47AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 03:53:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> > What's the plan for upgraded systems with an existing
>> > /etc/apt/sources.list.
>> > Will the
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 05:31:16PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Steve McIntyre (2022-10-02):
>> * Extra d-i code to inform users about what firmware blobs have been
>> loaded and the matching non-free-firmware packages. Plus information
>> about the hardware involved. Maybe a new d-i module
Am 02.10.22 um 20:14 schrieb Luca Boccassi:
On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 10:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
will
be very obvious. But if you currently have non-free configured but
don't
add the new firmware section, everything will appear to work but you
won't
get new firmware, so the problem may go
On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 10:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Shengjing Zhu writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 10:53 PM Steve McIntyre
> > wrote:
>
> > > So this is the one bit that I don't think we currently have a
> > > good
> > > answer for. We've never had a specific script to run on upgrades
>
On 2022-10-02 at 13:52, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Shengjing Zhu writes:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 10:53 PM Steve McIntyre
>> wrote:
>
>>> So this is the one bit that I don't think we currently have a
>>> good answer for. We've never had a specific script to run on
>>> upgrades (like Ubuntu do),
Shengjing Zhu writes:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 10:53 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> So this is the one bit that I don't think we currently have a good
>> answer for. We've never had a specific script to run on upgrades (like
>> Ubuntu do), so this kind of potentially breaking change doesn't really
On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 10:53 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >
> >Hi Steve,
> >
> >thanks for the update!
> >
> >Am 02.10.22 um 16:27 schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> >
> >> * Tweaks to add the non-free-firmware section in the apt-setup
Steve McIntyre (2022-10-02):
> * Extra d-i code to inform users about what firmware blobs have been
> loaded and the matching non-free-firmware packages. Plus information
> about the hardware involved. Maybe a new d-i module / udeb for this?
> Exact details here still TBD. Probably the
On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 10:53 AM Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >What's the plan for upgraded systems with an existing /etc/apt/sources.list.
> >Will the new n-f-f section added on upgrades automatically(if non-free was
> >enabled before)?
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 03:53:00PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
What's the plan for upgraded systems with an existing /etc/apt/sources.list.
Will the new n-f-f section added on upgrades automatically(if non-free was
enabled before)?
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>Hi Steve,
>
>thanks for the update!
>
>Am 02.10.22 um 16:27 schrieb Steve McIntyre:
>
>> * Tweaks to add the non-free-firmware section in the apt-setup module
>>if desired/needed.
>
>...
>
>> If you think I've missed anything
Hi all!
Sorry for the delay on this, I've been really really busy. :-(
I think it's time we started on the firmware GR, so I've mailed the
-vote list:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/08/msg1.html
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Unfortunately you forgot to also mention this bug for instance:
http://bugs.debian.org/494120
Which has been prematurely archived on 2008-08-15 while in
mid-discussion, by one party in that discussion.
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
http://bugs.debian.org/494120
Which has been prematurely archived on 2008-08-15 while in
mid-discussion, by one party in that discussion.
Uh... it was
Hi,
I don't think d-d-a is meant to be used as a forum, but since others are
doing so, I guess it's fine if I join.
With these hopefully solid plans in place for the release, we feel the
need to acknowledge that there is an ongoing vote whose outcome could
potentially disrupt them.
Luk is
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 10:36 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Hi,
I don't think d-d-a is meant to be used as a forum, but since others are
doing so, I guess it's fine if I join.
With these hopefully solid plans in place for the release, we feel the
need to acknowledge that there is an ongoing
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 10:54 +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Monday 15 December 2008 10:36:50 Robert Millan, vous avez écrit :
With these hopefully solid plans in place for the release, we feel the
need to acknowledge that there is an ongoing vote whose outcome could
potentially disrupt
Kalle Kivimaa kil...@debian.org writes:
Please refrain from using the absolutely wrong list for your own
political purposes in the future.
As Cyril already pointed out, Robert's post was to the devel, not to
the devel-announce, so please ignore my outburst. Sorry for the noise.
--
*
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com (15/12/2008):
I don't think d-d-a is meant to be used as a forum, but since others
are doing so, I guess it's fine if I join.
Thankfully, replies to mail sent to dda@ land in d...@. You fail.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Kalle Kivimaa kil...@debian.org (15/12/2008):
As Cyril already pointed out, Robert's post was to the devel, not to
the devel-announce, so please ignore my outburst. Sorry for the noise.
No no, you were right:
| From: Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com
| To: debian-devel-annou...@lists.debian.org
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Unfortunately you forgot to also mention this bug for instance:
http://bugs.debian.org/494120
Which has been prematurely archived on 2008-08-15 while in
mid-discussion, by one party in that discussion.
--
\“There are no significant
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
I don't think d-d-a is meant to be used as a forum, but since others are
doing so, I guess it's fine if I join.
Mmm, who is doing so? Do you mean the release team update? If so, I
don't think the update qualifies as using devel-announce as a forum.
And
Le Monday 15 December 2008 10:36:50 Robert Millan, vous avez écrit :
With these hopefully solid plans in place for the release, we feel the
need to acknowledge that there is an ongoing vote whose outcome could
potentially disrupt them.
Luk is referring to 11 bugs in linux-2.6 which all
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:36:50AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Hi,
I don't think d-d-a is meant to be used as a forum, but since others are
doing so, I guess it's fine if I join.
With these hopefully solid plans in place for the release, we feel the
need to acknowledge that there is
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be wrote:
There are currently 31 bugs marked lenny-ignore. As I understand things,
if option 1 makes it all those 31 need to be fixed before we can release
lenny.
Some of these are technical issues rather than DFSG issues, so aren't
Hello,
The kernel team consider that neither of the two proposals currently under
vote [1] are a good solution to the non-free firmware problem. Furthermore,
a consensual proposal has now reached enough seconds [2] to be put to vote,
and is much preferable, both in clearness of text as in actual
68 matches
Mail list logo
