Re: Bug#1077845: release.debian.org: Should non-free-firmware require being built on buildd?

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

Paul Gevers:
> Hi,
>
> On 03-08-2024 11:55, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Since the non-free is entirely opt-in and you had to be very active 
> > about opt'ing in as a admin, this seem fine. With the change to 
> > non-free-firmware now being enabled by d-i by default, we now have 
> > non-free-firmware packages installed by default that can use this 
> > opt-out and for me, that changes the game a bit.
>
> I totally agree.
>
> > I have not checked whether all non-free-firmware is auto-buildable
>
> It would be good if we had the answer to this question, because changing 
> britney2 to do the check for all binaries is trivial [1], and adding a 
> hint explicitly for those that aren't auto-buildable seems maintainable 
> (there are currently only 15 sources in non-free-firmware in sid).
>
> Paul
>
> [1] 
> https://salsa.debian.org/release-team/britney2/-/blob/master/britney2/policies/policy.py?ref_type=heads#L1543

Had a quick look at the testing `Sources` file for non-free-firmware. We 
are 10/15 on `Autobuild: yes` with remaining 5 not having the header.

No clue whether they could get that or we have to compromise already 
here. Though, even if they can, there is also the aspect of whether we 
are ready to commit to all new firmware being `Autobuild: yes`. I 
figured `d-boot` might have an opinion on that (which is why I have 
CC'ed them on this bug).

The 5 that are not `Autobuild: yes` would be:

atmel-firmware
bluez-firmware
dahdi-firmware
live-tasks-non-free-firmware
midisport-firmware

(as far as my wetware was able to eyeball)

Best regards,
Niels