Re: Review for the non-free-firmware template in apt-setup
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> writes:
> Template: apt-setup/contrib
> Type: boolean
> Default: false
> # :sl1:
> _Description: Use contrib software?
> Some additional software has been made to work with Debian.
I read this (and especially "has been made to work") as saying this is
about software that has been specifically designed for debian. im not
sure that is what you intend - isnt contrib merely any software that is
free but depends on non-free software?
> Though this
> software is free, it depends on non-free software for its operation. This
> software is not a part of Debian, but standard Debian tools can be
> used to install it.
> .
"a part" -> "part"
i found "standard debian tools" a bit cryptic - if standard tools can be
used, what is then need for this question? maybe "if you choose this
option" is needed somewhere?
(you might consider ""usual" instead of "standard"" to avoid
confusion with priority of packages and because there is apt and
aptitude and other choices available. or has debian really standardised
on one - if so would be better to say "using apt")
i also think "this software is free" will be read by many as meaning you
dont pay money for it. would "freely licensed" be better?
> Please choose whether you want this software to be made available to you.
this sounds like you are asking me to actually install the software, as opposed
to enabling me to install it later... but probably ok
> Template: apt-setup/non-free
> Type: boolean
> Default: false
> # :sl1:
> _Description: Use non-free software?
> Some non-free software has been made to work with Debian. Though this
> software is not at all a part of Debian, standard Debian tools
> can be used
As above, plus "not at all a part" -> "not part".
> to install it. This software has varying licenses which may
> prevent you
"varying" sounds odd to me, suggests a single license chsnges over
time(?).
i wonder if it that word should be deleted
> from using, modifying, or sharing it.
> .
> Please choose whether you want to have it available anyway.
>
> Therefore I've drafted the following for apt-setup/non-free-firmware:
>
> Template: apt-setup/non-free-firmware
> Type: boolean
> Default: false
> # :sl5:
> _Description: Use non-free firmware?
> Some non-free firmware has been made to work with Debian. Though this
> firmware is not at all a part of Debian, standard Debian tools can be used
> to install it. This firmware has varying licenses which may prevent you
> from using, modifying, or sharing it.
> .
> Please choose whether you want to have it available anyway.
Same comments as above. I suppose there is no contrib-firmware (yet?)?
>
> Differences:
> - non-free → non-free-firmware
> - software → firmware
> - :sl1: → :sl5:
>
> I don't think we need to go into more details about why there are
> different components, why non-free-firmware was split out of non-free,
> etc. After all, those questions are only asked in expert mode, and
> I'd hope expert users to have heard about our move to supporting this
> new non-free-firmware component… Hopefully we'll have some release notes
> about it, possibly installation guide updates, etc.
I agree you dont want any of that stuff here. I do think it would help new users,
even "experts" to say that 'firmware is used to enable support for
hardware' (is that right?) somewhere
> I've selected sublevel 5 instead of sublevel 1, to make sure this isn't
> going to hurt the translation status (which localechooser uses to warn
> against incomplete translations at the very beginning of the
> installation process). Since that template is only shown in expert mode,
> and since we're adding /pretty late/ in the release cycle, I'd be happy
> to have translations if translators jump on it, and “sed” the non-free
> on into non-free-firmware, but we shouldn't block on this… I'll let
> Holger comment about that part and possibly propose different plans.
>
(i didnt understand any of that paragraph, but i would hope the firmware
question is shown to at least as many people as the non-free question,
since far more people would want to enable it - eg you migth want to do
firmware question before the more general 'software' one)
Reply to: