Hi,
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Allowing apt to pin (or otherwise filter) packages using debtags, for example,
> sounds like a solution that would solve this problem while at the same time
> allowing a wide range of other uses as well.
Agreed. While the split looks like an easy
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:29:16PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> > freeness are distinct for the CPU and auxiliary PUs.
>> I get the feeling that the practical consequences of non-free softwa
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Having been a bit late I didn't fit into the room. I'm still in favor
> to have a vote on this. I'm personally unconvinced by the argument
> that it's "ok" for the hardware to use firmware blobs as long as you
> don't load them from within Debian. (Or, as
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:29:16PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > freeness are distinct for the CPU and auxiliary PUs.
> I get the feeling that the practical consequences of non-free software
> running on auxiliary PUs can be worse than CPUs:
>
>
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 03:15:07PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015, at 11:04, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>
> > I see how non-free firmware is needed, espacially if the installation
> > can't proceed due to missing network connectivity. But after it's done,
> > after the
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> I like the idea in principal, I just also think that dividing non-free
> must be a very thought-through process - with our users as first
> priority.
Agreed. We should probably start with only non-free/firmware for now.
--
bye,
pabs
http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2015, ആഗസ്റ്റ് 30 4:27:00 AM IST, Anthony Towns wrote:
>Also, having a hardware database that you could query before purchasing
>a new computer would be even better, no?
We already have one h-node.org
Praveen
- --
Sent from my Android device
On Aug 29, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> My rationale for this is as follows. First, Debian official installation
> image are conceptually part of what we call "Debian", i.e., main. I see
> no other possible logical interpretation of where those images reside
> w.r.t. the archive categories present
On Aug 28, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Our users are finding problems with current common hardware - much of
> it depends on loadable firmware. Much (most?) of that firmware is
> non-free; we distribute what we can here in the non-free component of
> the Debian archive.
>
> This now means that more
Hi,
Quoting Bas Wijnen (2015-08-29 16:36:03)
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > non-free/docs
> > > non-free/firmware
> > > non-free/drivers
> > > non-free/web
> > > non-free/comm
> > > non-free/for
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:33:04PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> This now means that more and more users end up enabling non-free just
> to be able to get at this firmware, which is a problem for many
> reasons.
> 1. Split up non-free?
> -
> Yes - need to work out details.
(a
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015, at 11:04, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> I see how non-free firmware is needed, espacially if the installation
> can't proceed due to missing network connectivity. But after it's done,
> after the user (possibly completely oblivious of what they did) clicked
> said button to proceed
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On the other hand that state went on for years and we should be able
>> to form our own opinion about freeness and how to abide to our
>> commitment to users and free software.
>
> We have formed our own opinion. Repeatedly, over many ye
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
First of all, thanks for having this discussion. I think it is a serious
problem. Debian is currently hard to install on many machines, and I very much
dislike the idea of telling people to enable all of non-free because of some
hardware. Installing
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:33:04PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> As promised, here's a quick summary of what was discussed at the
> Firmware discussion session in Heidelberg. This was not recorded on
> video, so I can't provide a link for that.
Thank you for this summary which I fi
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> > 1. Split up non-free?
> > -
>
> I think this needs to be additional subsets of non-free rather than
> splitting up non-free, for backwards compatibility an
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> I think this needs to be additional subsets of non-free rather than
> splitting up non-free, for backwards compatibility and other reasons.
> This is why I prefer non-free/firmware over non-free-firmware for
> naming these.
Agreed. It w
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> freeness are distinct for the CPU and auxiliary PUs.
I get the feeling that the practical consequences of non-free software
running on auxiliary PUs can be worse than CPUs:
May include signature checks to prevent new code from running. For
C
Paul Wise, le Sat 29 Aug 2015 13:15:21 +0200, a écrit :
> > But: what's a good level of split?
>
> One per use-case probably? I can think of at least these possibilities
> based on a couple of my old blog posts:
>
> non-free/docs
> non-free/firmware
> non-free/drivers
> non-free/web
> non-free/co
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 1. Split up non-free?
> -
I think this needs to be additional subsets of non-free rather than
splitting up non-free, for backwards compatibility and other reasons.
This is why I prefer non-free/firmware over non-free-fir
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:34:49PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > To me having the non-free firmware in the official image is not a problem
> > as long as we don't allow them to be loaded without an explicit
> > confirmation of the
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:34:49PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> To me having the non-free firmware in the official image is not a problem
> as long as we don't allow them to be loaded without an explicit
> confirmation of the user.
FWIW, I could totally live with that. I shall note that this wo
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Having been a bit late I didn't fit into the room. I'm still in favor to
> have a vote on this. I'm personally unconvinced by the argument that it's
> "ok" for the hardware to use firmware blobs as long as you don't load them
> from within Debian. (Or, as
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 3. Advertise the "unofficial" firmware-included media better?
> -
>
> Yes.
>
> It was generally agreed that this would be a good thing. Alongside the
> links to normal media in va
On 2015-08-28 17:33, Steve McIntyre wrote:
2. Include non-free-firmware on official media?
---
NO.
(I proposed this as a devil's advocate question.)
The answer is a clear *NO!* Even if it's not enabled or shown to users
by default, as a project we ha
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:33:04PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> (Non-free) Firmware in Debian
> =
>
> Background
> --
>
> Our users are finding problems with current common hardware - much of
> it depends on loadable firmware. Much (most?) o
26 matches
Mail list logo
