Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-06 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, i don't believe there is much choice left to the kernel team in > this issue but to ask for a waiver of the DFSG compliance for the > kernel for etch, and hope the d-i folk take their responsabilities a > bit more seriously for the etch+1 release. Or,

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-06 Thread Ron Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 George Danchev wrote: > On Saturday 05 August 2006 17:30, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> In linux.debian.kernel Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be true or at least do not consid

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-06 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In linux.debian.kernel Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>The real issue here is one of freedom and DFSG and not one of legality anyway. >>Those firmware are not DFSG-free and have nothing to do in main, and this is >>the real problem. > They were n

Please hint jfsutils

2006-08-06 Thread Frans Pop
The new jfsutils fixes two important bugs, one of which is very much wanted for d-i Beta 3 as jfsutils-udeb is currently missing for AMD64: * new upstream release fixing stack buffer overflow (Closes: #343638) * mark udeb package as such properly and create dependencies (Closes: #381245

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-06 Thread Sven Luther
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: > > > On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release > >> >>team > >> > I had such a plan,

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-06 Thread George Danchev
On Saturday 05 August 2006 17:30, Marco d'Itri wrote: > In linux.debian.kernel Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be > >> true or at least do not consider it a problem, and this is enough for > >> me to ignore the opinion of

Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with

2006-08-06 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release team >> > I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently. >> How do you handle the fact that it is a license

Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Holding off xfce4 uploads until current packages migrate to testing

2006-08-06 Thread Simon Huggins
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 12:56:40AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > I'm tracking it here: > http://ftp-master.debian.org/~adeodato/migration/libxfce4util.html > If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you to hold off if possible any > uploads any of the packages in the linked page until they have made >