On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:29:58PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :)
Oh well. Some people write ugly perl code, some write ugly VHDL. Not
the language or tools fault, just bad programmers.
> Which is often not the case on cheap devices (often usb)
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:26, Lennart Sorensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would expect anything on opencores.org to be perfectly readable VHDL
Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :)
> code, which is the prefered format for manipulating it. So what was
> your point again? B
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:46:14AM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> I'm willing to stake my reputation on betting you are _not_ a firmware
> engineer. Your are totally wrong if you think all firmware blobs can
> be replaced by human readable source.
>
> There is hardware, for which to function, will alwa
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 07:27:24PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:19, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there a reason why those interested in supporting blob-dependant hardware
> > can't make a release that includes those blobs? As per SC #1 they can't
> >
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:19, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a reason why those interested in supporting blob-dependant hardware
> can't make a release that includes those blobs? As per SC #1 they can't refer
> to it as "Debian", but they can use the project's resources to b
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 02:36:06PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> we'll be more likely to be push many of them towards installing
> other (even less free) systems instead.
Is there a reason why those interested in supporting blob-dependant hardware
can't make a release that includes those blobs?
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 22:22, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It should not take us an indefinite time to release with
>> firmware blobs gone. I'll stake my reutation that the period involved
>> is not indefinite, and there is a up
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Agreed, if we can make a dent in the non-free stuff in a reasonably
> short period. Then it'll work fine. If we delay too long, then we'll
> leave many of our users in their (current) worse situation and (even
> worse) we'll be more likely to be push m
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 22:22, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It should not take us an indefinite time to release with
> firmware blobs gone. I'll stake my reutation that the period involved
> is not indefinite, and there is a upper boundary to it.
>
>Testing out th
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 01:07:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> There's also the argument that the sooner we release Lenny with the
>> improvements that *have* been made, the sooner the people using stable
>> will be able to move away from whatever
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There's also the argument that the sooner we release Lenny with the
> improvements that *have* been made, the sooner the people using stable
> will be able to move away from whatever non-free stuff they've been
> stuck with in Etch.
I think th
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:23:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
>
>> > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
>> > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these inclu
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:19:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>The road we're continuing down is one of incremental *improvement* of
>Debian's compliance with the current Social Contract. We waived the
>requirement for DFSG-compliant documentation for sarge, and resolved that
>for etch; we wai
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:23:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
> > - 100% freeness
> > - cater best to t
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> OTOH, I do understand the desire to put such (diminishing) exceptions
> to a referendum instead of leaving them implicit, and am happy to vote
> for a GR that makes clear to our users the state of affairs in lenny.
Well said. I think we should
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 06:32:51PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
> - 100% freeness
> - cater best to the interests of our users
> Note that it does not say:
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:36:24AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Your lack of knowledge of Debian processes sucks (that means: you
> > annoy us (at least me) with your stance and the fanatic way you defend it
> > in public, pleas
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:43:47AM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>- "Aníbal Monsalve Salazar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The Sun employee is the Chief Open Source Officer at Sun Microsystems,
>>Simon Phipps.
>
>I'll be at Apachecon in two weeks and Simon Phipps is scheduled to be
>there. I'l
Manoj Srivastava wrote the following on 23.10.2008 19:06
<- *snip* ->
> Look, I am not proposing we have a GR for every upload. I am
> saying that non-free bits in main are a bug. A serious bug. A RC
> bug. It is a big fucking deal. It comes to the core of what Debian is.
>
>
- "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
>
> > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
> >
> > - 100% freeness
> > - cater best to the inter
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
>
> - 100% freeness
> - cater best to the interests of our users
Frankly, this mindset infuriates me. It
On Wed, Oct 22 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> At some point, someone has to decide. Doing a vote for each is
> impractical. As our choice is _not_ silent, if someones (like usually
> the reporter who _sees_ such tags happen) disagree, he can raise a
> discussion. AFAICT it's what is happening cur
also sprach Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.21.1747 +0200]:
> Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
> or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
> then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal
> with
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:36:24AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> Every kernel upload changing the ABI goes through NEW.
>
> Your lack of knowledge of Debian processes sucks (that means: you
> annoy us (at least me) with your stance and the fanatic way you defend it
> in public, please stop th
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
> > > delegates have the powers to decide w
- "Aníbal Monsalve Salazar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Sun employee is the Chief Open Source Officer at Sun
> Microsystems,
> Simon Phipps.
I'll be at Apachecon in two weeks and Simon Phipps is scheduled to be there.
I'll ask him about the SUNRPC issue. Would someone privately mail me
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:15:55PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
>
> > And you're comfortable with ftp-master ruling DFSG-iness through NEW
> > then ? I don't really see the difference.
>
> I would be uncomoftable with ftp-masters willfull
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> And you're comfortable with ftp-master ruling DFSG-iness through NEW
> then ? I don't really see the difference.
I would be uncomoftable with ftp-masters willfully allowing DFSG
violations in main without ratification from the project as a w
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:24:01AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> Common guys, they are simply refusing to do the work which is their
> rights, but they will accept patches. Some bugs are opened for 4 years,
> and I still do not see any patch to provide a loading firmware
> mechanism.
>
> On t
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:31:34PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> > Which means that as per SC #4 you're welcome to package those firmware blobs
> > and provide them in the non-free repository.
>
> That's exactly what I meant, instead of simply dropping support of
> hardware, as you suggested
Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>> An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think that
>>> removing SUNRPC support (and with it NIS, NFS and more)
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:21:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:31 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > I knew I haven't quote enough parts of DFSG:
> >
> > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> >
> > We acknowledge that some of our users require the
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:39:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>>
>>>An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think
>>>that removing SUNRPC s
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>
>> An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think that
>> removing SUNRPC support (and with it NIS, NFS and more) is a suitable
>> choic
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:31 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I knew I haven't quote enough parts of DFSG:
>
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
>
> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do
> not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We hav
Robert Millan a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:36:03PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> | 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
>>
>> | We will be guided by *the needs of our users* and the free software
>> | community. We will place their interests *first in our priorities*. We
>
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
> > delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made
> > to violate a foun
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:36:03PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> | 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
>
> | We will be guided by *the needs of our users* and the free software
> | community. We will place their interests *first in our priorities*. We
> | will support the needs
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:30:57PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> and every single User will have non-free, whereas I believe quite a few
> live without it right now.
That just means we're delluding ourselves. Every single user has non-free
already, as part of their linux-2.6 package and a few o
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:22:18PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:42:25PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:29:01PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:40:14PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:02:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > No firmware
> > > issue tagged etch-ignore is still present in lenny. IOW the kernel team
> >
- "Pierre Habouzit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not, and that's exactly Marc's point, the difference between
> non-free and Debian will be blurry (if it's not already blurry enough),
> and every single User will have non-free, whereas I believe quite a few
> live without it right now.
>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:48:16PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:47:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
> > or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
> > then as it's a l
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:45:33PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:27:14PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> > BTW, as you seems really concerned by this kind of bug and think it is
> > easy, I offer you to do the job of getting this code relicensed. If in
> > 60 days (th
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:51:52PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> I think that'd be a really good solution. Debian users could continue using a
> 100% free system, and those who don't mind the blobs could use that
> alternative.
It's not, and that's exactly Marc's point, the difference between
no
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:40:14PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:02:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > No firmware
> > issue tagged etch-ignore is still present in lenny. IOW the kernel team
> > *is* doing good work in that area, and I see no reason to pressure them
>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
>
> > Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
> > or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
> > then as it's a long and slow
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:42:25PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > The bug being more than
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:40:14PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:02:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > No firmware
> > issue tagged etch-ignore is still present in lenny. IOW the kernel team
> > *is* doing good work in that area, and I see no reason to pressure them
>
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
> or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
> then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal
> with the copyright holders to re
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:54:32PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> From what I can gather from your mails, it seems to me that you would
> prefer to distribute a completely free operating system now, even if this
> means that quite a few users will switch to something different. Yes,
> this
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:27:14PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> BTW, as you seems really concerned by this kind of bug and think it is
> easy, I offer you to do the job of getting this code relicensed. If in
> 60 days (the same delay as you proposed) it is not done, I will consider
> that this
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move
> > > glibc to non-free
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:02:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> No firmware
> issue tagged etch-ignore is still present in lenny. IOW the kernel team
> *is* doing good work in that area, and I see no reason to pressure them
> more than useful.
This ain't true. Some of these bugs were known sin
Robert Millan a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think that
>> removing SUNRPC support (and with it NIS, NFS and more) is a suitable
>> choice (unless we want to lose all users who haven't switch
- "Robert Millan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +
> + In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
> + following rule is to be followed:
> +
> +
> + When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
> + Debia
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move
> > glibc to non-free (and with it, half of the archive to contrib)? It
> > would be faster to
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:48:16PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:47:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > [...]. Here you could modify source,
> > big deal, you won't be able to *build* the damn firmware. ever.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bu
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Option 1 (set an upper limit)
> ~
[move stuff to non-free after some time]
I believe this to be a bad idea.
Would we enforce this at the moment, Debian main would be empty, as
glibc (and consequently, all of it's r-build-dep
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think that
> removing SUNRPC support (and with it NIS, NFS and more) is a suitable
> choice (unless we want to lose all users who haven't switched yet to
> Ubuntu).
I ha
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:47:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is,
> or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...),
> then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal
> with the copy
Robert Millan a écrit :
> [ This is a DRAFT, only intended to get feedback. Do not second yet! ]
>
[snip]
> Option 1 (set an upper limit)
> ~
>
> The developers resolve that:
>
> When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
> 60 days o
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:52:42PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> Traditionally, we have assumed good will, and specially cooperation from
> the release team; DFSG violations were considered "Release Critical" bugs
> and therefore every one of them would have to be fixed before release.
There are t
[ This is a DRAFT, only intended to get feedback. Do not second yet! ]
Hi,
Personal opinion, not part of the GR
In the past few days, it's become obvious (see discussion in -devel) that
our existing control structures are not effective at enforcing rule #1
64 matches
Mail list logo
