Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Henning Makholm <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>> I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
>>> This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
>> Which ones?
> non-free isn't part of Debian. Using loadable firmware is becoming
> increasingly common in hardware design. In the fairly near future, most
> modern hardware is likely to require it in order to allow installation.
I fail to see how your response describes a logistical problem with
shipping the firmware in 'non-free'.
>> It would be a better course of action to solve those problems than to
>> deliberately mislabel non-free firmware as free.
> I'm not suggesting that we claim that firmware is Free,
Putting it in 'main' rather than 'non-free' constitutes such a
claim. That is what the distinction between 'main' and 'non-free' is FOR.
> but putting it in non-free is:
> (a) going to result in an awkward situation for installation, and
You have not described any such awkward situation, as far as I can see.
> (b) not likely to provide any extra freedom to the user
The point is not to provide extra freedom *per se*. The point is to
label things correctly such that the user *knows* whether he is
getting non-free software.
> I've suggested before that creating a separate section for firmware may
> be the best solution.
You have not described how that would differ from using 'non-free'.
Henning Makholm "What a hideous colour khaki is."