Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem

2005-01-10 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:21:40AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I have a problem, conceptually, with a kernel package which provides drivers for 10,000 different types of hardware, and needs to load firmware from disk for 300 of them,

Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem

2005-01-10 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:51:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: You also need to turn this question around and ask it the other way: does having these drivers in contrib actually hurt anything? Yes. It currently means that we can't ship an installer with support for this hardware, because

Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem

2005-01-10 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Craig Sanders dijo [Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 05:28:23PM +1100]: it's worse than just putting them in contrib. there's a whole bunch of drivers with firmware blobs that have just been deleted from the kernel sources. they're not in contrib, they're not in non-free, they're just gone. this

Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem

2005-01-10 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:35:59PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: Andrew Suffield writes: On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:51:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: You also need to turn this question around and ask it the other way: does having these drivers in contrib actually hurt anything?

Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem

2005-01-10 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:22:45PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: The larger problem is to identify non-free blobs in the main kernel, extract them into non-free and modify the driver so that it is able to load the blob from a user provided location; and include this in

Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem

2005-01-10 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being in contrib doesn't mean that a work is evil, nor is contrib a second cousin to non-free. It means that something is not part of debian and is not acceptable for install media, which looks like a big enough problem to me. It would be silly to be able to move a

Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem

2005-01-10 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True enough. I have a harder time justifying to myself keeping such drivers in main, but I also think that the infrastructure needed in order to support grabbing firmware out of non-free (for things like the installer) could easily work for the case of contrib driver +

Your Managers Don't Have Expertise They Have This.

2005-01-10 Thread Marty Acosta
Get a legal college degree Instantly: Here's the ultimate solution for anybody who needs to get a degree instantly with no attendance requirements or hassle of any kind. Get recognition for your experience. Give us a call @ 1.206.666.6485 narrate initiate torture actinium pixel acadia

Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem

2005-01-10 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bet that, with some of these firmware blobs, we could reverse-engineer and clean room clone them in a country with permissive reverse engineering laws. At that point, we'd have something that was definitely free. I bet you could not, for interesting devices (DVB

Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem

2005-01-10 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:14:02AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: I bet that, with some of these firmware blobs, we could reverse-engineer and clean room clone them in a country with permissive reverse engineering laws. At that point, we'd have something that was definitely free. Anyone