Re: [H-source-users] generalize (or eliminate) the distros white-list

[Yuchen Pei]

Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli <GNUtoo@cyberdimension.org> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 13:34:12 -0400
> bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote:
>
> > my main criticism of the distros white-list, is that
> > "distros-by-release" is not the most informative 
> > categorization;
> > and that there is no reason for the client to discriminate,
> > based on one specific server's white-list
> Indeed.
>
> > it seems to me that the kernel is the only significant factor
> > which determines if some hardware "works with free software"
> > (which the website shows generically for all entries) (ie: that
> > really means: "works with _this_ libre kernel") - IIRC, all
> > client hardware entries carry the kernel and version
> > information; so distro information reduces to analytics or 
> > trivia
> I'd add a minor fix here: the kernel is the most significant 
> factor.
>
> We also have userspace drivers for instance in bluez, mesa, 
> modem
> manager, etc. In the case of bluez, some utilities in 
> bluez-utils can
> even load firmwares inside bluetooth chips. In addition the boot
> software like the BIOS/UEFI/Libreboot can also play a role.

What kind of role does boot software play here?  I notice that 
some newer laptops are marked platinum because things like Intel 
ME is not part of the criteria.  Is this what you are referring 
to?

> I've in mind a similar model than what you are talking about, 
> where a
> given hardware (like a WiFi usb adapter for instance) has 
> attached to it
> several "tests", where each test would record things like the 
> date, the
> distribution version (if it has one), the distribution, the 
> kernel, and
> ideally have the ability to add comments for this 
> test. Developers
> would also have the ability to add more fields later on if 
> needed, like
> the bluez version for bluetooth dongles.

For completeness, shouldn't we also add versions of drivers that 
do not come with the kernel (e.g. nouveau), or do you mean to put 
this piece of information in the comments?

> > here are some good reasons to push this concern out of the
> > source code, or to remove the distros white-list entirely (an
> > empty or missing white-list file, could simply default to:
> > "accept-any-with-known-kernels")
> The issue with the distribution + version list is also that it 
> needs to
> be maintained over time. And distributions often add new 
> versions.
> It looks less a concern for distributions as the pace of change 
> is very
> slow.
>
> I should try to find some time to add the missing distributions 
> (like
> Replicant and probably LibreCMC and ProteanoOS as they are very
> different from regular self-hosted FSDG compliant distributions.

Sounds good.  BTW what do you mean by "self-hosted"?


--
Best,
Yuchen

PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
          <https://ypei.me/assets/ypei-pubkey.txt>

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature