Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> (2021-08-03): > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:05:34PM -0600, Charles Curley wrote: > > When using an official installer image, you will most likely need to > > enable the non-free component of the archive, when asked for that. Do we prompt for such a thing? We offer loading firmware from external storage, which might or might not work due to lack of active support (#991771). As far as I understand from the code I looked at (#989863 and friends), if one chooses to look around for firmware files/packages, non-free will be automatically enabled without a specific prompt about that part. But then I was mainly making sure firmware-enabled images would work better out of the scope. > I just have a comment on the term, and it's probably too late and too > invasive, but anyway: > > 'official' and 'inofficial' are IMO the wrong terms here, it would be > better to call them what they are: Debian main/free installation > images and Debian main&non-free installation images. Are you choosing to ignore SC#5 entirely? non-free isn't part of Debian. > As I see it, Debian does a release. Or a main release if you like to > call it more descriptive. And a non-free release. Calling that > non-free release 'inofficial' is IMO besides the point and non-helpful > if too many people need those. (Fixing the initial typo in passing) unofficial is the directory where unofficial installation images live; that helps people find the relevant files. > And they need them, not because unofficial stuff is cool or better, > but because those non-free firmwares are included! > > So, I'd call those images the "Debian main images" and the "Debian > main images with non-free firmwares". > > But maybe besides being too late for this change, this change is also > not just editorial / a question of language, but a political stance. > > But I also think naming things correctly is 'the right thing to do' > and part of the excellence we strive for. So, bookworm material maybe? I'll let him chime in, last I checked, neither Steve (for debian-cd and/or debian-boot) or me (for debian-boot) believe we have the right to make that kind of decision for the Project as a whole. So we stick with the status quo. If you want to change it, get the Project's approval. (We wouldn't mind; quite the opposite, probably. But do we want to lead the next firmware GR? No.) Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature