On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:49:40PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that
> > would be different but I have not seen them doing this.
> Great, so since there won't be any
[ 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
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
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 Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Interesting; Manoj's post isn't in the -vote archives on master. I wonder
why that is?
> > Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
> > ,
> > | http
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
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
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 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
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
- "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
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
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
> solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
> at least 2004 -- over four years ago! -- means we will continue to do
> releases with non-free s
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
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 07:27:14PM +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 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, 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 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 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 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 05:40:14PM +, 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 05:51:52PM +, 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 05:45:33PM +, 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 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
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard "not support
> the hardware for installation" as acceptable.
I'm very glad that history has shown most developers disagree with you.
> So I can upload an NMU right now that fixes the problem?
No, it's not OK.
- "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 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
> >
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 10:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
> > solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
> > at least 2004 -- over four
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 08:30:57PM +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 08:36:03PM +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, 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, 2008-10-21 at 21:21 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard "not support
> > the hardware for installation" as acceptable.
>
> I'm very glad that history has shown most developers disagree with you.
>
> > So I can
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
that list?
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
> several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
> in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
> redistributable firmware can belong
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 Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I see. So the previous statement that "nobody is standing in the way"
> of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
That's nonsense. Uncoordinated NMUs are never acceptable for packages that
are in general activel
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 13:30 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> > If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
> > several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
> > in the kernel is decreasin
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I see. So the previous statement that "nobody is standing in the way"
> > of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
>
> That's nonsense. Uncoordinated NMUs
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
> ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
> at time of release.
No matter what our principles are? Wow. Why are we not equally
committe
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
> exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
> list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
> that list?
I would be enti
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
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
> But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
> major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
> work, and rejecting anything simpler.
Ever hear of the Technical Committee?
signature.asc
Description: This i
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
> > exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
> > list gets smaller between
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:23 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
> > But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
> > major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
> > work, and rejecting anything simpler.
>
> Ever hear
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > > Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
> > > exhaustive list of non-free bits in
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:36 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > > > Would it be a good compromise between SCs
- "Thomas Bushnell BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> > Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
> > ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
> > at time of release.
Really do
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> This is a technical dispute? Whether your packages need to comply with
> the DFSG?
Isn't a dispute about alternative fixes for a bug a technical dispute?
I thought that was your point.
The violation itself is not a matter for the TC (altho
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
> > ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available
> > hardware at time of release.
>
> That's news to me. W
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
> ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available
> hardware at time of release.
That's news to me. Where is such a dedication required? Is it some
special reading of t
Ean Schuessler dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:35:55PM -0500]:
>
> If I was going to suggest any kind of change to the Social Contract
> at this point it would be:
>
> 6. Debian will obey the law
>
> We acknowledge that our users live in real communities in the real
> world. We will support the nee
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:06 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> I worded that rather badly. You should imply "within acceptable terms of
> the DFSG" here... in this case, putting stuff in the nonfree firmware
> package in non-free is an acceptable solution.
Of course; that's an excellent solution. Ri
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:06:29PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
> > > ensuring future releases of Debian support the
- "Gunnar Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Umh, problem is the myriad of jurisdictions all over the world. This
> would very easily become unfeasible. In the end, it ends up being each
> user's responsability to obey the law the best way he can. Debian
> helps as much as possible by only usi
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:45 -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I guess the question is, staying in the arena of "100% Free", what if
> DRM technologies become pervasive in the United States and Europe and
> it literally becomes illegal to have a computer without some
> proprietary software in it? What
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 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 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
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)
61 matches
Mail list logo
