Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Thank you very much for the replies. If I understand it correctly, the current approach does seem to be more guaranteed indeed. 2018-01-20T01:06:21-0200 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jan 16, 2018, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > >> What if for example the kernel wouldn't

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

On Jan 20, 2018, bill-auger wrote: > i must say though that it did not address what is the actual > behavior preventing the debian kernel from being acceptable, I didn't try to address that, and I'm afraid I don't know the answer myself, not having looked at the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:05:08 -0500, Felipe Sanches wrote: > Regarding devices that rely on non-free fw but that could also work > "without firmware"... I think that most likely does not exist. An example: Many Radeon graphics cards work without firmware, but have no 2D or 3D acceleration. The

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 07:51:44 -0800 (PST) "Jason Self" wrote: > Perhaps a more philosophical question is: *Should* a free program, > especially one used in FSF-endorsed distros, be generating requests > for proprietary programs in the first place? Regardless of how they > might

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Perhaps a more philosophical question is: *Should* a free program, especially one used in FSF-endorsed distros, be generating requests for proprietary programs in the first place? Regardless of how they might be handled.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

> i must say though that it did not address what is the actual > behavior preventing the debian kernel from being acceptable, I thought it did. > why is it not possible to simply change or suppress the error > message printed to the log or to later or periodically scrub the > logs of the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Alexandre - thanks for that detailed explanation - i have been curious about this myself - i must say though that it did not address what is the actual behavior preventing the debian kernel from being acceptable, which as i understand is not related to its ability to load any modules but simply

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

On Jan 16, 2018, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > What if for example the kernel wouldn't reference stuff by file names, > but instead to bus address or something like that? It's not just about the error messages, it's also about what the kernel actually requests of the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

On Dec 23, 2017, "Jason Self" wrote: > My understanding is that there is an idea for how to > enable the loading of the proprietary firmware without also steering > people to it when it's not present. That idea unfortunately proved to be insufficient for scenarios in which e.g.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

It's probably best to run it by Alexandre Oliva. I imagine that there will still be challenges with this; he'd be the best person to explain them. It's not an easy problem to solve or it would have been by now.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

What if for example the kernel wouldn't reference stuff by file names, but instead to bus address or something like that? So instead of saying "Unable to load firmware: some-file.bin." it would say "Unable to load firmware: 03:00.0" this would unfortunatelly have the drawback of making the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Not necessarily. My understanding is that there is an idea for how to enable the loading of the proprietary firmware without also steering people to it when it's not present. A partial patch for it already exists in the linux-libre mailing list archives but it's a hard problem and hasn't been

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

On 2017年12月22日 17:13, Henry Jensen wrote: > As Jason Self mentioned in his answer, the use of the Debian kernel by > PureOS should be considered a (freedom) bug. I personally would prefer to see the requirement for the names of firmware files to not me mentioned anywhere lifted, and for

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Hi Zlatan, Am Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:41:01 +0100 schrieb Zlatan Todoric : > I will not read into thread but I can also add this: Debian kernel > itself doesn't contain non-free firmware at all (they are separate > packages in non-free repo that we sync too). Debian does

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Henry Jensen asked: > So, of course I want to know how PureOS can use this Debian based > kernel and be endorsed while ConnochaetOS can't? As Donald implied there is a lot of work involved in review a distros so I imagine that this was missed. A primary difference is a

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Hi Henry, On 12/22/2017 05:18 PM, Henry Jensen wrote: > Hallo, > > congratulations for adding a great distro to the list. > > However, it seems that PureOS is not using the linux-libre kernel but a > kernel based on Debian's Linux kernel. Yes, that is correct. > > When I tried to get