On 06/11/2010 12:41 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 10.06.2010, 19:24 +0200 schrieb Remco:
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 19:10, Remco <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:53, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Once again: those are bugs. Let's just focus on solving the problem in
>>>> the existing kernel instead of adding another one.
>>>>
>>>> It's more difficult to segregate the non-free material so it can be
>>>> provided via the restricted repository for those that want it than it is
>>>> just to rip it all out, but that's the way to support both freedom of
>>>> software and freedom of choice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. My lingering question is, does this bug actually exist? I was
>>> under the impression that all the non-free parts were already removed
>>> when the "free-only" option was selected.
>>
>> Debian, for example, separates the firmware into a free and a non-free
>> variant:
>> http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=firmware-linux
>>
>> Ubuntu does not use those package names. Where did the firmware end up
>> in Ubuntu?
>
> Just search for package with 'firmware' in its name. We have
> linux-firmware in main and linux-firmware-nonfree in multiverse.
>
>
Considering the discussion and that linux-firmware is in main:
$ apt-cache policy linux-firmware
linux-firmware:
Installed: 1.36
Candidate: 1.36
Version table:
*** 1.36 0
500 http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/ubuntu/ maverick/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
shouldn't it be in restricted instead? Or am I misunderstanding
something here...?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
