[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware



On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 11:51:08AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section
>and move the non-free firmware blobs there.  I'm wondering what we need
>to do next?
>
>Besides the ftp team setting the new section up, I expect the installer
>would need changes to enable it instead of non-free when non-free
>firmware is required; maybe it still needs to ask for non-free as well
>for other reasons?  Other teams might also need to add the new section,
>e.g. the release team, packages.d.o, ...  I expect the list to be
>hard-coded in quite a few places.
>
>Then the release notes need to document that "non-free-firmware" might
>have to be added to sources.list.

Are we sure on the name? Previous commenters have suggested that
"non-free/firmware" might be better. I understand that may be more
awkward to implement in terms of directories... :-)

>Finally we need to identify the packages that should move there.  I
>guess all non-free packages named "firmware-*" would be a good match.

IME there are also some matching "*-firmware" and "*microcode".

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...


Reply to: