Bug#550379: acknowledged by developer (closing 550379)
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:56:57 +0200 maximilian attems wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 03:40:02PM -0400, Michael S Gilbert wrote:
> > > # explanation given by maintainer
> > > close 550379
> >
> > there is no explanation in the bug logs. the closest thing to an
> > explanation is:
> >
> > This is not possible for other reasons.
> >
> > where the 'other reasons' are never explained. if someone can state
> > these reasons, i would be content to give this up if they are justified.
>
> they are, please reread carefully
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=550379#22
ok, i think we're caught in a continuing cycle of miscommunication and
misinterpretation. for clarity, social contract item 4 states:
4. Our priorities are our users and free software
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free works
that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to charge a
fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow others to
create distributions containing both the Debian system and other
works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals, we will
provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with no legal
restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.
i understand very well that you intend to serve the needs of your
users, and i have no intention of impeding that. i have not
intentionally made any statement contrary to that requirement in this
thread and do not wish to do so.
i, in fact, fully support the kbuild binary packages. i am part of the
pkg-fglrx team, so i very much rely on kbuild's availablity. that
package, of course, is non-free, and i have no problems with that fact.
i too volunteer my time for the benefit of debian's users even on
"non-free" stuff.
the only way that i can understand the kernel team's perspective in
message #22 is that you have misinterpreted my report as a request for
kbuild to be done away with (maybe based on some non-free concept or
something that i never stated). this was certainly not my intent, and
perhaps i can clarify.
in one sentence, my request is for the linux-2.6 and linux-kbuild-2.6
*source* packages to be merged (they are both in main, so there should
be no social reason for this to be impossible).
consequently, i fully support the continued existence of the kbuild
binary packages (which would be built via the linux-2.6 source package
instead of the separate linux-kbuild-2.6 source package).
mike
Reply to: