On May 22, 2008, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:58:25 -0300 > Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Can you point me to where you've approached the upstream kernel >> > maintainers about this? >> >> I haven't. I'm told others have, and have been ridiculed. From what >> I gather from the LKML archives and personal experiences there, I have >> no reason to disbelieve them. > Ok, but you said you had facts. Now you're telling me you only have > hearsay? As in, what's in the archives, including my personal experiences on LKML, are hearsay? I don't think so. >> Because upstream doesn't want to achieve this goal, and actively >> refuses to accept changes essential to get there. > Pointers to this would be nice. Mailing list archives, IRC > conversations, anything. I don't have any such pointers handy, save for the related discussions that you'll find with a web search for "LKML remove firmware or blob". >> > If those patches get integrated, then wouldn't the parts you find >> > objectionable be gone? >> Not all of them, no. > ? Sorry. I was so much in a mindset of "there's no way upstream is going to accept this" that I focused only on the second half of your question, completely missing the antecedent that conflicted with my mindset and that would have made the answer 'yes'. So, I take back the above. Given the antecedent, the answer would be 'yes'. I just don't see that happening. I guess it may be worth a shot, though. >> > I certainly didn't think you intended to _replace_ the main kernel >> > package. But I don't agree with even providing a completely different >> > alternative "kernel-libre" package. If it can't be built as a flavor >> > of the existing kernel package, then I don't see it being approved for >> > inclusion. >> So much for http://www.linux-books.us/fedora_core_0001.php > So much for having a productive conversation. You're avoiding my point > (or think it's entirely hopeless) and spewing rhetoric again. I thought the acceptance of all patches upstream was entirely hopeless. However, DWMW2's suggestion today might work, although I still don't quite understand its details. I wasn't trying to avoid your point. My response was an allusion to what I perceive as an inconsistency between Fedora's long-ago stated goal (build an entire operating system out of free and open source software) and the preference for following an upstream that (through their actions) oppose this goal, rather than giving precedence to the stated goal and switching to another upstream that is compatible with the goal. -- 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} -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
