Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting
Alexandre Oliva
aoliva at redhat.com
Thu May 22 18:18:47 UTC 2008
On May 22, 2008, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 20:53 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Assuming that's acceptable upstream. I sort of doubt it,
> Post them to me; I'll convert them to 'diff -u' for you and send them
> on.
Thanks, I'll probably take up the offer.
> That is best addressed by making sure you don't come across as a kook.
Can't really help that, there's a fundamental cultural clash. That's
why your offer to be the man in the middle is so invaluable.
> You need to make it clear that you're not just intending to remove stuff
> and run away leaving it broken;
But I am :-) :-)
Seriously, not really; I don't intend to deprive users of the ability
to get their stuff to work, but I also have limited resources to put
into personal projects, so it's hard to do more than the absolutely
minimum necessary to achieve the goal I had in mind. Even more so
because I foresee a lot of resistance, that ultimately makes me expect
it to be a pointless exercise. But it's yet another of those win-win
situations, in which if I try it and succeed, excellent; if I don't, I
can at least come back and say "see?, I told you" :-)
>> Could you honestly tell me, with a straight face and a reasonable
>> degree of assurance, that a patch that performs these actions stands
>> any chance whatsoever of being accepted upstream?
> I'll tell you what I'd do to _improve_ its chances. Would that do?
It seems like a reasonable idea and a useful feature (although I don't
quite see that as a major improvement over loading this stuff out of
initrd), but I honestly don't see that upstream will want to sacrifice
the convenience of having the firmware right there as part of their
buildable tarball just because such a feature is in place. They don't
exactly care about helping us achieve a 100% Free source tarball, you
know :-)
I guess we'll have to try and see. Maybe we should start with the
non-redistributable piece of firmware I mentioned.
> And after that, you can look at evicting the offending blobs from the
> kernel altogether.
This is the part I don't see happening. And if it doesn't happen,
then all of this will have been just running around in circles as far
as my goals are concerned.
> Since Fedora uses an initrd anyway, we'd probably choose not to
> build any of the blobs into the kernel, but to ship them in a
> separate package(s). You can then just omit that package from your
> compose.
As long as they're part of the kernel source tarball, the distribution
of any spins allegedly Free still involve the distribution of this
non-Free Software. So achieving anything less than a blob-free kernel
source tarball is no progress.
Now, do you understand what I'd need to achieve in order to accomplish
the goal I set out to accomplish, and do you still believe there's
even a slight chance of that coming about upstream?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list