"Joe Smith" writes:
> "Mark Brown" wrote in message
> news:20090427092413.ga1...@sirena.org.uk...
> > Indeed; [an inline table of bytes] is a *very* common way of
> > expressing register values, especially when working with large
> > numbers of them at once. I've no idea what Robert believes the
"Mark Brown" wrote in message
news:20090427092413.ga1...@sirena.org.uk...
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:48:27AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 21:41 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> #494120 and #494122.
[...]
I disagree with these as the tables in question are easily small
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:48:27AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 21:41 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > #494120 and #494122.
> [...]
> I disagree with these as the tables in question are easily small enough
> to be a plausible preferred form for modification.
Indeed; this is
On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 21:41 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:36:50AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > no point in posting that to devel announce.
> > this work is pointless and has no review at all by the debian kernel team.
>
> Hi Max,
>
> At the risk of repeating myse
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:36:50AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> no point in posting that to devel announce.
> this work is pointless and has no review at all by the debian kernel team.
Hi Max,
At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank
you for the very noticea
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 08:51:50PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> + Paul Wise (Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:13:11 +0800):
>
> > linux-libre goes further and removes even the request_firmware calls
> > for non-free firmware:
>
> To an hypothetical person that would deeply care about not running
> non-free s
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 19:19 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > Okay. So I take it then that you would be against separate packaging
> > for Linux-Libre for Debian, and prefer instead to apply all its
> > changes to Debian's Linux?
No, but I am committed to separating sourceles
Hi
On Freitag, 24. April 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Adeodato Simó writes:
>
> > To an hypothetical person that would deeply care about not running
> > non-free software, does that provide any real gain/benefit/improvement
> > over running a kernel full of request_firmware() calls, and never
> > i
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
>> Okay. So I take it then that you would be against separate packaging
>> for Linux-Libre for Debian, and prefer instead to apply all its
>> changes to Debian's Linux?
>
> I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I feel the urge to weigh in.
>
> I think
Ben Finney (24/04/2009):
> Think of it as “defense in depth”, ensuring that there is more than
> one barrier to undesirable elements.
Having to enable contrib/non-free and to pull stuff from there being of
course insufficient?
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Russ Allbery writes:
> As with any other Debian package, the best approach for adoption is to
> get the patches adopted upstream so that everyone can benefit and we
> don't have to maintain local divergences. It sounds like Ben Hutchings
> and the Debian kernel team have been doing great work in
Ben Finney writes:
> Okay. So I take it then that you would be against separate packaging
> for Linux-Libre for Debian, and prefer instead to apply all its
> changes to Debian's Linux?
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I feel the urge to weigh in.
I think the removal of even the ability t
Ben Hutchings writes:
> What I meant was that all the firmware blobs reported as bugs in the
> lenny kernel are gone in sid, either through upstream changes or new
> Debian patches. A few more, found later, will be gone in the 2.6.30
> package.
Right. So we agree than what Robert has announced
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 23:37 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 20:32 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > I understand that this packages Linux Libre, which is somewhat
> > > different from the Debian ‘linux-image’ kernel. What is the
> > > likelihood that this
Adeodato Simó writes:
> To an hypothetical person that would deeply care about not running
> non-free software, does that provide any real gain/benefit/improvement
> over running a kernel full of request_firmware() calls, and never
> installing a firmware package from non-free in their systems? H
On Apr 23, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> To an hypothetical person that would deeply care about not running
> non-free software, does that provide any real gain/benefit/improvement
> over running a kernel full of request_firmware() calls, and never
> installing a firmware package from non-free in their
+ Paul Wise (Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:13:11 +0800):
> linux-libre goes further and removes even the request_firmware calls
> for non-free firmware:
To an hypothetical person that would deeply care about not running
non-free software, does that provide any real gain/benefit/improvement
over running a k
Le vendredi 24 avril 2009 à 00:12 +0930, Karl Goetz a écrit :
> Its not like you appreciate them (users/lurkers, call them what you
> will) announcing it on -dev ... (Your not a DD, so STFU etc)
You must be mistaking Marco with a former DPL.
--
.''`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:11:42 +0200
Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:12:21AM +0930, Karl Goetz wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:45:11 +0200
> > m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > ...
> > > Lurkers told you so in private mails?
> >
> > Its not like you appreciate them (user
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:12:21AM +0930, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:45:11 +0200
> m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> ...
> > Lurkers told you so in private mails?
>
> Its not like you appreciate them (users/lurkers, call them what you
> will) announcing it on -dev ... (Your not
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:45:11 +0200
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> On Apr 23, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > In spite that you don't, I'm certain many of our users will
> > appreciate this.
> Lurkers told you so in private mails?
Its not like you appreciate them (users/lurkers, call them what
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 20:32 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I understand that this packages Linux Libre, which is somewhat
> > different from the Debian ‘linux-image’ kernel. What is the
> > likelihood that this work will make its way into Debian main as a
> > supported optio
Robert Millan wrote:
[...]
> This is to announce that Debian packages of Linux-libre [2] are now available
> for Lenny users who want to use them:
>
> deb http://people.debian.org/~rmh/linux-libre lenny main
>
> Archive key is attached in this signed mail; it is also available from:
>
> ht
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 18:13 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> linux-libre goes further and removes even the request_firmware calls
> for non-free firmware:
>
> http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/Alexandre_Olivia_-_Linux_Libre_-_LibrePlanet_2009.spx
> http://groups.fsf.org/index.php/Alexandre_Oliva_%28LP09%
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 20:32 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Robert Millan writes:
>
> > The decision to include non-free firmware in Lenny concerns the whole
> > project.
> >
> > Providing support for some of our users who would have otherwise been
> > excluded by this decision is, therefore, somethi
On Apr 23, Robert Millan wrote:
> In spite that you don't, I'm certain many of our users will appreciate this.
Lurkers told you so in private mails?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Robert Millan writes:
> The decision to include non-free firmware in Lenny concerns the whole
> project.
>
> Providing support for some of our users who would have otherwise been
> excluded by this decision is, therefore, something that concerns the
> whole project as well.
Thanks for providing
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
> In spite that you don't, I'm certain many of our users will appreciate this.
Be that as it may, debian-*DEVEL*-announce is not the way to contact our
users. Instead it's the only must-read list for our developers to keep
informed of stuff that's import
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:52:45AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As you probably know, back in December last year it was decided [1] that the
> > Linux package shipped with Debian Lenny would include non-free
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:36 PM, maximilian attems wrote:
> no point in posting that to devel announce.
Agreed.
> this work is pointless
Only if you think FSF-free is pointless, obviously that isn't everyone.
> if you want a working and dfsg free converging linux-2.6 use our sid packages.
> w
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:21:56AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> As you probably know, back in December last year it was decided [1] that the
> Linux package shipped with Debian Lenny would include non-free code in it
> (so-called "blobs" of binary-only firmware).
>
> While the majority of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Millan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you probably know, back in December last year it was decided [1] that the
> Linux package shipped with Debian Lenny would include non-free code in it
> (so-called "blobs" of binary-only firmware).
This still does NOT
32 matches
Mail list logo
