-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> The idea is to create a new section that contains files like
> firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware
> to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run
> on the host CPU.
[FWIW, I've bee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Didier Raboud wrote:
> And if this section is not considered "part of the Debian system", why
> including software from it on the Debian CD's ? (The inverse question is to
> be answered too…)
Because it might be required in order to install all that f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loïc Minier wrote:
> If the intent is to include it in our CD-ROMs, I think some people will
> want a "really really free" CD-ROM which doesn't have this section.
Or maybe an explicit debconf question about the non-free nature? This
could make sure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I suspect it would not be hard to create a non-free installer CD
> that obviates the requirement of a separate USB key for remote
> installs.
If (almost?) everyone will use non-free stuff anyway, why not just make
l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>>> The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
>>> not yet operable with Debian,
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ben Finney wrote:
> The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are
> not yet operable with Debian,
Which wireless card is supported by debian without any sourceless
firmware, either loaded by the kernel or present on the chip?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "Peter Palfrader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
>>
>> If anybody wants to change the words of either the DFSG or the SC
>> they will need to propose an amendmend.
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Millan wrote:
> May I suggest "so-called \"blobs\"" or some indication that "blob" is an
> informal term?
Informal like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blob ?
- From there it appears it is better described as 'binary blob' in order
not to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> -- [Forward] -
>> From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:01:13 +0100
>
>> - code uploaded into another cpu (a device cpu, not a SMP cpu of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> "Johannes Wiedersich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> I would propose to create a new section of the archive, called
>> 'sourceless' or such. Stuff within this arch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Absolutely. I'm looking into creating such "unofficial" CDs already as
> part of the regular builds.
> I think I agree with the suggestion of creating a new archive section
> for firmware - packages that are acknowledged to no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Millan wrote:
> If the project as a whole determines that the Release Team is empowered to
> make exceptions to SC #1 as they see fit, I would accept it [1].
Please stop repeating in an endless loop that the Release Team must focus
on SC #1, wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Can someone explain me why all these threads smell of gratuitous RM
> bashing?
Simple statistics: there are many DDs, but only few RMs.
Simple sociology: those who are content, don't complain.
Those also don't go in endl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> Debian won't run on a large fraction of hardware any more.
> ...
>> To restate the obvious: After the transition a lot of current d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:27:59 +0100 Robert Millan wrote:
>>
>>> I think you're trying to imply that somehow SC #1
>>> and SC #
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:27:59 +0100 Robert Millan wrote:
> I think you're trying to imply that somehow SC #1
> and SC #4 are not consistent. That is, that "our priorities are our users"
> is incompatible with our system being "100% free".
They are inc
16 matches
Mail list logo
