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 are going to
need to be *copied* no
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Michel Alexandre Salim
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, mic...@michel-slm.name
* Package name: libkdumpfile
Version : 0.4.1
Upstream Author : Petr Tesarik
* URL : https://github.com/ptesarik/libkdumpfile
* License
> "Vincent" == Vincent Bernat writes:
Vincent> ❦ 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
❦ 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 get hardware working
> better.
Is there any firmware that would match
Dear Debian Developers,
the idea is to reward the good Open Source work :)
What about (could do that in PHP) reward system, that logs/makes
transparent, what developer-contributor, contributed how much "work"
(meassured in hours/lines of code/but also votes (rating the quality of
the commit?)
TL;DR: I tried to think about what all would go in non-free-firmware if
we create it.
I think there are some complicated questions especially around source
dvds and dependencies.
Hi. So it sounds like a number of the options involve creating a
non-free-firmware component, and we might even have
[such questions are probably better directed at debian-user]
Am 10.05.22 um 14:46 schrieb Jaime:
On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 13:06, Jaime wrote:
According to https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/udevil, udevil
recommends udisks2.
I've also just realised that udisks2 is not mentioned anywhere in
On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 13:06, Jaime wrote:
> According to https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/udevil, udevil
> recommends udisks2.
I've also just realised that udisks2 is not mentioned anywhere in the
upstream build instructions:
https://github.com/IgnorantGuru/udevil/blob/master/README
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
9 matches
Mail list logo
