Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:52:36PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: >> In the case of a device driver, that dependency would still be there if >> the firmware was in ROM. Which would put pretty much all of our device >> drivers, X (talks to VESA code), APM and ACPI (talks to BIOS), and so >> on, in contrib too. > > Not in the same way: we don't have to include it; the device driver does > not have to be supplied a copy of it for it to work. > >> Stuff in contrib generally has a package dependency on something in >> non-free that is necessary to install it, and the entire package is not >> functional if that dependency is not fulfilled. The driver is a >> component of the larger kernel which remains functional. > > If it comes down to "the driver, on its own, would not be acceptable for > main because it is not functional; but as a practical matter, we allow > it aggregated with the rest of the kernel because splitting individual > drivers into contrib is a pain for everyone involved and not worth the > theoretical benefits", I can live with that. > > It's "we're pretending the driver is fully functional and does not have a > dependency on the firmware, even though it asks for it by name, opens and > parses the file, and doesn't do anything useful without it" that I'm > uncomfortable with.
Yes, we agree there. The kernel as whole is functional without the extra firmware. The driver itself is not. But since the driver is only a small portion of the kernel it does not impede its functionality enought to force a move to contrib. MfG Goswin