On 5/11/22 17:24, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
Quoting Thomas Goirand (2022-05-11 17:14:57)
For backwards compatibility, I think that the firmware component is
going to need to be a subset of non-free; i.e. packages are going to
need to be *copied* not moved from non-free to the firmw
Hi!
On 5/12/22 03:29, M. Zhou wrote:
> I learned in disappointment after becoming LuaJit uploader that
> the LuaJit upstream behaves uncooperatively especially for IBM
> architectures [1]. IIUC, the upstream has no intention to care
> about IBM architectures (ppc64el, s390x).
>
> The current ppc6
On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 19:38 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> You may want to talk to people responsible for that firmware, reproducible
> builds sounds like an attainable goal to me.
I don't have any of the hardware that supports SOF, so I'll leave that
up to the firmware-sof-signed maintainer etc.
On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 17:14 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> A work around would be to have some automation to check if non-free is
> activated, and (propose to) update the sources.list automatically to add
> non-free-firmware.
That isn't feasible, since apt sources are managed external to Debian
Hi folks,
I learned in disappointment after becoming LuaJit uploader that
the LuaJit upstream behaves uncooperatively especially for IBM
architectures [1]. IIUC, the upstream has no intention to care
about IBM architectures (ppc64el, s390x).
The current ppc64el support on stable is done through c
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 09:48:56AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> The only exception is things like firmware-sof-signed, which is libre
> firmware except the binaries are built and signed by Intel, so Debian
> can't build the firmware binaries ourselves, unless the approach taken
> with the Secure Boot
Quoting Thomas Goirand (2022-05-11 17:14:57)
> > For backwards compatibility, I think that the firmware component is
> > going to need to be a subset of non-free; i.e. packages are going to
> > need to be *copied* not moved from non-free to the firmware component,
> > which means they would be avai
On 5/11/22 03:48, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 14:30 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
So let's assume that at least all those packages can move to
non-free-firmware.
For backwards compatibility, I think that the firmware component is
going to need to be a subset of non-free; i.e. packages
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:04:15AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 10 May 2022 14:30 -06, Sam Hartman:
> > 2) We value being able to build from source when we can. We value
> > being able to have reproducible builds when we can. We don't want to
> > take steps backward in those areas in order to
On 10.05.2022 at 14:06 +0200, Jaime wrote:
According to https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/udevil, udevil
recommends udisks2.
Two questions:
1) Why?
2) What willI I lose by having udevil *without* udisks2?
Many thanks, J
Hello,
I think adding the maintainer as CC to this message was perhap
10 matches
Mail list logo
