On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> They will if people care as much about that separation as they do about
> separating firmware.
Which effectively still means, that it won't happen for exactly those
reasons I gave you before.
While following the lists, I've noted that sever
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Not true at all. A future change to build a more fine-grained version
> of non-free could happen just as easily with or without this change.
I don't agree.
If there is now lots of effort put into adding another suite, people
will probably n
And btw:
Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps
generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source
software while keeping other non-free software, then the name
non-free-firmware seems to break the current naming, doesn't it?
main
contrib
non-free
These
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware
> section
> and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we
> need
> to do next?
While it's good that at least something happens it's really sad and
kinda disturbing to see that a more narro
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Then why should one have "non-open" at all? The argument was that this
> somehow brings some sort of "security" by being able to audit things
> (though the license may probably still forbid you from doing so or
> publishing your results, i
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>Another one that is worth mentioning here --- which I discussed in
> the
> context of non-free.org with Dafydd Harries and others --- is
> introducing a debtags facet to capture the reason why a package is in
> non-free.
I'd still say that solving that via debtags isn't
Hey.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> debian-project, or hopefully debian-devel. -project for talking about the
> idea, -devel for discussing an implementation.
Mehdi mentioned below that it would already land on debian-devel.
So I'm not sure whether it makes sense to post i
Hey Niels
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Philippe Cerfon:
> Your second item has been brought up before with different
> focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest in
> splitting "non-free" into "non-free/firmware&
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Discussing infrastructure changes like what you're proposing (which I
> have no advice about) should usually be done through our mailing
> lists,
Which one would be the appropriate list?
I thought general would fit, as it likely affects m
Package: general
Severity: wishlist
Tags: security
Hi.
I think Debian has the following two problems (or rather its security
conscious users) with respect to software that gets into the system:
First,
more and more packages install software which sneaks around the
package manager (and thus typi
10 matches
Mail list logo
