* Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Di, 28 Okt 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Could you please remove my email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - or the
> > short version [EMAIL PROTECTED] from all parts from of your web portal?
> >
> > In particular, I found it here:
> > http://lists.debia
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I ackowledge that the current requirements of the social contract
> > as it's worded and intended require us to ship the source code of
> > the lib/firmware blobs.
> Simply because anything that we ship as part of Debian must be
> DFSG-free.
Yes; we
[This doesn't affect the actual issue, so redirected to just -devel
again]
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefano Avallone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> while trying to install kdesvn from experimental, I got the following
>> error:
> Please report a bug against kdesvn - severity impo
On Mi, 29 Okt 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
> there have been cases in the past showing that sometimes our mailing lists
> have
> a particular attention from email harvesters. It is therefore not so
> surprising
> that we have complains like the one you answered to: some addresses stay
But then he
Le Wednesday 29 October 2008 11:17:57 Norbert Preining, vous avez écrit :
> Anyone with a decent intelligent approach would ask the list masters,
> admins, whoever, and NOT post again on debian-devel.
I think that Charles meant that, even though someone makes a naive request for
which you -- and
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, producing a Debian including free firmwares would be
> superior than producing a Debian which ships non-free firmwares,
> but the actual option at hand is producing a Debian without the
> firmwares.
Since the Social Contract promises Debian
On Mi, 29 Okt 2008, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> give a rude answer, or worse, insult him.
Just to make it clear, I had private email conversation with him and he
agreed on all points.
Best wishes
Norbert
---
Dr. Norbert Pre
Max Kellermann wrote:
>> What do you all think?
>
> +1 from me. We are already maintaining our packages in a (private)
> subversion repository which we could (and should) move to Alioth. Of
> course it's a good idea to have a bigger team, since I am an
> unofficial Debian maintainer, and sometim
Faidon Liambotis schrieb am Wednesday, den 29. October 2008:
> Max Kellermann wrote:
> >> What do you all think?
> >
> > +1 from me. We are already maintaining our packages in a (private)
> > subversion repository which we could (and should) move to Alioth. Of
> > course it's a good idea to hav
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Of course, producing a Debian including free firmwares would be
> > superior than producing a Debian which ships non-free firmwares,
> > but the actual option at hand is producing a Debian without the
> > f
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Since the Social Contract promises Debian *won't* ship non-free
> things, that's not an option compatible with the promises made by the
> Debian project.
I might not have said it clearly enough:
- I agree the current DFSG and social contract imply we nee
LinkedIn
shirish Agarwal requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
--
Paul,
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- shirish
View invitation from shirish Agarwal
http://www.linkedin.com/e/uwTRS9NuUj0vo8kjIcGBPqZT
Steve M. Robbins schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> The buildd log pages, e.g. [1], used to be sorted by package version
> (or maybe build date). However that is no longer the case.
>
> Can this be fixed? The current situation is less than useful since
> the latest build is buried in other output.
You should
[Teemu Likonen]
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> [...] We will never make the system require the use of a
> non-free component.
>
> The "system" doesn't require non-free components; it's just some users
> and their hardware that does. Debian cares about the "system".
D
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The buildd log pages, e.g. [1], used to be sorted by package version
> > (or maybe build date). However that is no longer the case.
> >
> > Can this be fixed? The current situation is less than useful since
CCing debian-devel
Hi,
An issue has been brought to my attention and I wonder, if this is a bug
or the intended behaviour. For reference see
https://bugs.launchpad.net/medibuntu/+bug/290621.
In this case a package should be removed. In its postrm it calls
update-mime-database, update-mime and so
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
>>
>> You should report a bug against qa.debian.org / www.debian.org.
>
> Neither of those is the correct contact/package regarding
> buildd.debian.org. I guess we don't have a metapackage for w-b and
> buildd.d.o. Maybe even
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 12:47 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> >>
> >> You should report a bug against qa.debian.org / www.debian.org.
> >
> > Neither of those is the correct contact/package regarding
> > buildd.debian.org.
Daniel Leidert wrote:
If I understand this case correctly then the problem is quite likely that
this message
>> Unknown media type in type '...'
is output to stdout instead of stderr.
Programs/scripts that have to be able to run under debconf are not allowed
to output to or read input from std
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Leidert wrote:
> If I understand this case correctly then the problem is quite likely that
> this message
>>> Unknown media type in type '...'
> is output to stdout instead of stderr.
> Programs/scripts that have to be able to run under debconf are
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Neither of those is the correct contact/package regarding
> buildd.debian.org. I guess we don't have a metapackage for w-b and
> buildd.d.o. Maybe eventually that will be fixed.
If whoever would be responsible for it files a wishlist bug asking for
it
Am Mittwoch, den 29.10.2008, 20:30 +0100 schrieb Frans Pop:
> Daniel Leidert wrote:
> If I understand this case correctly then the problem is quite likely that
> this message
>
> >> Unknown media type in type '...'
>
> is output to stdout instead of stderr.
>
> Programs/scripts that have to be
--
Robin Fleischer
Team Supermoto Erzgebirge
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:20:29 +0100
Team Supermoto Erzgebirge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nothing, according to apt-file and packages.debian.org - at least in
unstable.
Besides, debian-devel is the wrong list - try debian-user and provide
the output of 'which ginstall' in your question.
--
Neil
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> At least, that's my understanding of some of the use cases presented
>> here: that even the vendors of those blobs routinely modify the binary
>> blob directly to generate a new version of it, much like
>> bit-mani
Right. This is getting somewhat beyond my knowledge of debconf internals,
but here is what happens.
Daniel Leidert wrote:
> You don't need more. For some reason "Make me fail." is given as
> argument to the debconf confmodule:
The full debug log and the sourced confmodule file fairly clearly sho
Am Mittwoch, den 29.10.2008, 23:21 +0100 schrieb Frans Pop:
> Right. This is getting somewhat beyond my knowledge of debconf internals,
> but here is what happens.
>
> Daniel Leidert wrote:
[..]
> The full debug log and the sourced confmodule file fairly clearly show
> what happens.
First thank
Hi,
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> The buildd log pages, e.g. [1], used to be sorted by package version
> (or maybe build date). However that is no longer the case.
It seems that build.php relies on the results of opendir/readdir to be
in order and that assumption not being valid anymore.
> Can this
On 28 Oct, 2008, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mardi 28 octobre 2008 à 14:12 -0200, Alexandre Oliva a écrit :
>> I hope the prevalent interpretation of Debian's rules and policies
>> isn't so lax as to make room for such manipulation as packaging stuff
>> in main that belongs in
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Since the Social Contract promises Debian *won't* ship non-free
> > things, that's not an option compatible with the promises made by
> > the Debian project.
>
> I might not have said it clearly enough:
> - I
Hello Ben and *,
Am 2008-10-27 18:31:25, schrieb Ben Finney:
> If so, I don't get it either.
>
> If we use the ???preferred form of the work for making modifications to
> it??? definition of source code, what is the form that best meets that
> definition?
>
> What form of the work do the copyrig
Am 2008-10-27 10:10:19, schrieb Neil Williams:
> > Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
> > you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
> > blob using the chip manufacturers tools.
>
> Are these "chip manufacturer tools" physical tools/ma
Am 2008-10-28 12:41:31, schrieb Ben Finney:
> "Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Usually it's whatever the chip manufacturer provides.
;-)
> That doesn't seem to address my question. Here, ???the copyright
> holders??? means the copyright holders in the work under question; i.e.
> the wo
Am 2008-10-28 02:45:31, schrieb Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo:
> If it's not clear by now, people are not arguing that hardware should
> not be used if it is not free hardware (either it is feasible or not to
> distribute or exist source code). The matter is whether source for code
> that will not
Am 2008-10-28 09:33:07, schrieb Tristan Seligmann:
> Again, assuming I'm not misspeaking, that form of the work is already
> what we have.
ACK ;-)
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GN
Hi Jeff,
Am 2008-10-27 12:26:31, schrieb Jeff Carr:
> Some modern devices let the OS load this code
> into the chip then we are able to write fully GPL drivers for the
> device.
This sounds a little bit weird...
What does have the FIRMWARE to do with a DEVICE DRIVER?
The FIRMWARE is intend to
Am 2008-10-29 00:39:40, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> How exactly do you propose to load the firmware, if not through a JTAG
> port? Back in the world of production hardware which Debian runs on,
> ASICs tend to have power-on-reset logic built-in...
Most PCI hardware has a very small bootloader which
Am 2008-10-27 17:01:50, schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> Jeff Carr wrote:
>
> > But the opencore case is the easy case, hybrid chips don't even have
> > source. The firmware blob is often generated when you fabricate the
> > chip & changes with the physical board layout. You guys just don't
> > understan
Am 2008-10-28 10:00:31, schrieb Lennart Sorensen:
> Debian's policy is not insane. It is consistent. Any hardware maker
> that wants their hardware to work with free software could use an
> eeprom to store the firmware within the device, so that there is nothing
> non-free that has to be distribu
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:33 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> Anw what do you do with sourcode, for which there is not even a
> compiler
> availlable under Linux/BSD? And you HAV to buy a 8000 US$
> development
> suit from the chip manufacturer to build the firmware?
Free software is an iterat
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 15:15 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Since the Social Contract promises Debian *won't* ship non-free
> > things, that's not an option compatible with the promises made by the
> > Debian project.
>
> I might not have said it clearly en
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 21:47 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> There are SDKs called "Builder" where you will have NEVER source code,
> even as Developer, since the "Builder" create an IMAGE which will be
> uploaded into the the SRAM of a Microcontroller (I have some 8051
> compatibles)
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:53 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> What does have the FIRMWARE to do with a DEVICE DRIVER?
For the DEVICE DRIVER to work, a FIRMWARE must be loaded on some
hardware, as you well know.
Debian has promised that the Debian distribution will only be free
software. Some of t
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
Does this mean that non-free should move to a third-party repo like
certain other repos out there
44 matches
Mail list logo
