Re: Manually add firmware (or other) packages for installation?
On Sat 27 Feb 2021 at 17:32:34 +0000, Justin B Rye wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On 2/27/21 11:46 AM, Holger Wansing wrote:
> >> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote (Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:21:58 +0100):
> >>> The point is: We separate free and non-free images for a very reason and if
> >>> you add a mechanism that just silently enables non-free on a system that
> >>> was installed with the free installer, you are defeating this separation.
> >>
> >> 1. *I* do not do or change anything here. It's the case like this for ages!
> >
> > Of course, you are. You are sending in a patch.
>
> But is that patch one that "silently enables non-free" and "taints"
> the official installer? All I see it doing is giving expert users
> more convenient access to the mechanism they can already use on the
> console to get their hardware working properly.
I wouldn't use the term "silently enables non-free" myself. However,
the patch blatently pushes users towards using non-free. Considering
that one of the targets of the patch is "newbie users", expert mode
leaves them in the cold, as many of them use Install.
> If only we knew of a plausible use case for a kind of "additional
> package" that someone might install this way *other* than firmware, I
> suspect that would make this more palatable. The nearest I can think
> of is that I hear tales of people setting up a local repo with a
> "LAN-standard package-set" metapackage. Any takers?
>
> >> 2. non-free does *NOT* be *silently* activated! The user is prompted for this,
> >> and he needs to explicitly say YES to this option!
> >> And this question is only be asked in expert installation mode.
> >
> > You are contradicting yourself. Earlier in the discussion you claim that the
> > user just enters the name of the firmware packages and the installer does
> > the rest of the work.
>
> *If* the user has configured apt appropriately, it's already possible
> to do this via a console. Holger's idea is that if people often need
> to do that, the installer could just offer a dialog.
Why use a console when early_command, late_command and pkgsel are
at hand?
BTW. What is this "official installer"? Is the same as "the installer"?
--
Brian.
Reply to: