On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:32:57AM -0700, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > > > Also, I don't want to move lots of software to contrib. I would much
> > > > rather have it fixed by removing the support for the non-free services,
> > > > or by having plugin systems that allow only the non-free-interfacing
On 8/14/17 5:42 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 05:29:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
Also, I don't want to move lots of software to contrib. I would much
rather have it fixed by removing the support for the non-free services,
or by
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 05:29:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
> > Also, I don't want to move lots of software to contrib. I would much
> > rather have it fixed by removing the support for the non-free services,
> > or by having plugin systems that
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 01:07:32PM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > you are running this on a computer with non-free software (*). Should
> > everything
> > now be in contrib?
>
> No, I explained before that I think we should be pragmatic.
We already were, before this discussion.
--
WBR,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:51:06AM -0400, Holger Levsen wrote:
> you are running this on a computer with non-free software (*). Should
> everything
> now be in contrib?
No, I explained before that I think we should be pragmatic.
> Or can we maybe rather bury this thread?
I do not see how "you
Hi,
you are running this on a computer with non-free software (*). Should everything
now be in contrib?
Or can we maybe rather bury this thread?
(*) all hardware includes non free software… at least all, which is assembled
into a "computer". You surely find some hardware pieces with only free
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 05:28:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Miles Fidelman writes:
>
> > Getting past all the obfuscatory count and counterpoint, there seem to
> > be two clear questions on the table:
>
> > 1. Given a piece of FOSS client software, that has no
Miles Fidelman writes:
> Getting past all the obfuscatory count and counterpoint, there seem to
> be two clear questions on the table:
> 1. Given a piece of FOSS client software, that has no purpose other
> than to interface with a proprietary back-end service (say
"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
> Also, I don't want to move lots of software to contrib. I would much
> rather have it fixed by removing the support for the non-free services,
> or by having plugin systems that allow only the non-free-interfacing
> part to be in contrib.
I believe
On 8/13/17 1:05 PM, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
My purpose of this thread (which is a question asked elsewhere) is to find out
if there is consensus about this issue. If there isn't, I don't want to bother
everyone with a mass bug report. Which, as Russ pointed out, would be a pretty
large
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:07:51PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 12 août 2017 09:12 GMT, "Dr. Bas Wijnen" :
> > No, it doesn't. 2.2.1 says "None of the packages in the main archive area
> > require software outside of that area to function." In other words, if
> >
Vincent Bernat writes:
> Then, please file bugs against offending packages, severity
> serious. Otherwise, all this discussion is useless. A starting point
> could be golang-github-datadog-datadog-go and golang-google-api
> packages.
And please think about the significant
]] Christian Seiler
> Hi,
>
> I don't have anything useful to add to your other comments, but:
>
> On 08/12/2017 02:11 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Christian Seiler
> >>> [free CPU designs]
> >>> (although I'm sure there are...)
> >>
> >> There are, take a look at RISC-V, for example.
Hi,
I don't have anything useful to add to your other comments, but:
On 08/12/2017 02:11 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Christian Seiler
>>> [free CPU designs]
>>> (although I'm sure there are...)
>>
>> There are, take a look at RISC-V, for example. [1] And for the
>> requirement about not
]] Christian Seiler
> > So that means I don't think all of Debian should be in non-free because
> > there
> > are no free cpu designs
>
> Ahem, nobody said anything about non-free here, we're talking about
> contrib. That said: for all release archs of Debian there are
> actually free
❦ 12 août 2017 09:12 GMT, "Dr. Bas Wijnen" :
>> And honestly, I don't have to do a thing. Nothing will change. Free
>> software using "non-free services" will stay in main because they meet
>> the proper requirements (policy 2.2.1).
>
> No, it doesn't. 2.2.1 says "None of
Hi,
On 08/12/2017 11:12 AM, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:06:40AM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> I don't think this is as black and white as you paint it:
>
> It's certainly not black and white, and as I wrote elsewhere, the line can
> move. But there is a line and I
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 09:55:17AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 12 août 2017 07:37 GMT, "Dr. Bas Wijnen" :
> > Your argument seems to be:
> >
> > Debian cares about free software.
> > Therefore, Debian does not enable contrib and non-free by default.
> > Therefore, users
❦ 12 août 2017 07:37 GMT, "Dr. Bas Wijnen" :
>> > That is a disservice to our users. While for many users this is true,
>> > those
>> > users will have contrib (and probably non-free) enabled in their
>> > sources.list.
>> > So moving the package to contrib doesn't change
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 08:55:01AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 12 août 2017 06:29 GMT, "Dr. Bas Wijnen" :
>
> > That is a disservice to our users. While for many users this is true, those
> > users will have contrib (and probably non-free) enabled in their
> >
20 matches
Mail list logo