[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

From: Chris Lamb
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:39:05 +0100

Dear all,

Apologies for not seeing this thread earlier. 

I believe the source of much for the confusion here is because, alas,
not all of the conversation and clarification has occured on the public
tracker and is thus not visible to you.

Some of these chats happened via IRC and some even happened IRL. I
appreciate that this can be rather opaque; indeed, it is frustrating
even for myself as it requires storing state (ew!) and not being able
to rely on a canonical source of truth.

Indeed, even some of the banter that occurred on the linked thread is
not actually funny to someone outside of all the conversations and
small clarifications.

> > * todd opened an issue named "firmware binary warning should not appear
> > for non-free binaries"

First, just to clarify, this is to do with seeing firmware quote-errors-
unquote when running update-initramfs and actually nothing to do with
messages originating from the kernel / "dmesg".

> > it seems the only way to find this is in the deb repo

Alas, this is not quite accurate but not your fault at all. You can
see the corresponding Git commit here:

However, I can see that this is not transparent to someone getting
hold of the source. Notably:

.. still refers to the Debian repository. I have gone ahead and made
the following change here to avoid this in future:

> > initramfs-tools_0.130pureos2 has already clobbered
> > initramfs-tools_0.130pureos1

"Clobbered" is, again, not quite accurate; there was indeed a "pureos2"
upload but it did not revert or change anything related to the above:

> > or the debian patch:

This is an entirely separate (from a technical point of view) change
and can be found here:

It might not be clear from the above report but this part is, for me,
not yet fully resolved as the aforementioned linked page does not even
*begin* to discourage the usage of non-free software enough.

I trust this, at least, clarifies the technical changes made here.

Best wishes,

Chris Lamb

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]