[ keeping the cross-post and please keep it cross-posted ] On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 01:09:45PM -0500, dann frazier wrote: > hey, > Frans Pop assembled an informal BoF at DebConf to discuss cross-team > issues related to the kernel[1]. > > We discussed the following topics: <snip/> > * Non-free modules + firmware > * External module packages > Non-free modules + firmware > --------------------------- > It was noted that Bastian Blank is working on splitting non-free > modules out of main into their own source package. > > frans> It should happen pretty soon; we need the modules in non-free before > we do the d-i work; d-i will probably ask for an exception so that > d-i can install them as though they were in main because frans thinks > we won't have time for that (modules really won't be in main) > > This means that non-free modules will be on installer cds. The needed > exception would be to allow etch to be used as a transition period. > > manoj> this isn't a release management decision, we don't want another GR > aba> a GR would be time consuming > > manoj> what about a free and a non-free installer image, where the non-free > installer is in the non-free section
What work is done to get the Linux kernel completely libre? Who is talking with hardware manufactures to GPL their code? > aba> 2-3 different options > * images like today w/ non-free udebs > * only put the modules on non-free, make users pick them up > * dropping support for devices that require non-free fw completely > > manoj> only option (for permitting non-free modules on the etch > installer) is a gr to once again modify our social contract > > suggestion was made to have users "click-through" to opt-in to use non-free > firmware. manoj believes this is still a violation of the social contract > and will require a GR (because the non-free modules would still be on > the media) > > manoj> you can ask for an official interpretation of the social contract > from the project secretary. > > manoj suggests two different installers, but joeyh is concerned over > additional > maintenance/support > > The deliver modules/users opt-in approach would give us enough time, > but requires a GR. > > joeyh> maybe keep it as a separate image that can be combined by the user, > problem is that the solution varies with each installation method > floppy install needs another floppy; netboot needs another layered > initramfs > > joeyh> multi-sessions could be used for cd installs > > In conclusion, we believe the following options exist: > a) debian doesn't support this hardware > b) GR to allow combining > c) make users combine > > > External module packages > ------------------------ > Its believed that if we solve the non-free external module package > issue, we will also have solved this one. Beside "non-free" will the external module package help hardware manufactures to get their libre driver in Debian > - divergence between official kernel packaging and kernel-package (k-p) > > The /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build symlink issue was introduced by > Manoj. The attendees agreed to move this to a discussion thread on > debian-kernel, in probably a week's time. Please post the outcome also to debian-boot Cheers Geert Stappers > [1] http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20060517.065113.4f39d60e.en.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
