Freedom Issue #36
[linux-api-headers][aarch64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers][riscv64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers]: has source containing and recommending nonfree software
100%
Description
The fix is to use Linux-libre source, like it's done in abslibre-mips64el.
Files
Related issues
History
Updated by Anonymous about 12 years ago
linux-libre-api-headers is now available for x86_64 and i686 ;)
Updated by Megver83 over 6 years ago
- Related to Freedom Issue #1571: [aarch64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers] compiles using blobbed linux kernel sources added
Updated by bill-auger almost 2 years ago
linux-api-headers has source containing and recommending nonfree software
[aarch64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers] compiles using blobbed linux kernel sources
erm ... which source code? - which blobs? - how would anyone ever know if that is still true? - maybe those sources and/or blobs are not there anymore
i added this ticket as the blacklist bug reference, as it is the only known reference to this alleged freedom bug and other packages are repeating this claim and referencing this ticket as the justification for blacklisting; but as documentation this bug report is useless - it pretty much guarantees that these packages can never be removed from the blacklist
D-
Updated by bill-auger almost 2 years ago
- Subject changed from linux-api-headers has source containing and recommending nonfree software to linux-api-headers][aarch64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers][riscv64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers]: has source containing and recommending nonfree software
Updated by myself600 6 months ago
- File usr-mainline.md5 usr-mainline.md5 added
- File usr-libre.md5 usr-libre.md5 added
Updated by bill-auger 6 months ago
- Subject changed from linux-api-headers][aarch64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers][riscv64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers]: has source containing and recommending nonfree software to [linux-api-headers][aarch64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers][riscv64-linux-gnu-linux-api-headers]: has source containing and recommending nonfree software
no one claimed that it was invalid - it is the blacklist reference; so it should contain valid information - the problem is that this one is very incomplete - it gives no useful information - a better single word would be "useless" or "uninformative" or "unhelpful"
nothing in this ticket explains what the precise problem is or was, or how to know if the problem still exists -
if those files were different, that still indicates nothing useful - why are they different? - are they different enough, or should they be more different? - if that question can not be answered, then this BR is useless and there is no justification for those packages being on the blacklist
OTOH, if the files are identical, then the only new information that adds, is that linux-libre does not modify those files - so the question becomes "why are those files identical?" - but whether they are identical or different, that is not important - they could be identically libre or identically non-free
still, the only important question remains unanswered: "how could we know which files should be different and which should be the same?"