On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 08:48:25PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > 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... :-) If my recalling is correct, at the BoF there was indeed a mild preference for non-free/firmware, because that names better captures the fact that /firmware is indeed a sub-part of "non-free" rather than something new. There was also concerns that introducing something *separate* wouldn't fly with the social contract, which explicitly mentions main/contrib/non-free whereas it does *not* mention non-free-firmware. In that sense "just" allowing to select a sub part of non-free wouldn't be a problem, whereas introducing something new might be. But an important part of the above reasoning in favor of non-free/firmware was that user enabling explicitly non-free in the sources.list and *not* enabling non-free/firmware would get the non-free firmware anyhow. I.e., no regressions or changes needed w.r.t. the status quo. From other messages in this thread I understand this is actually not going to be the case. Which would be problematic and also a little bit disturbing. Is really no technical way to easily allow to have packages in multiple (sub-)parts of the archive? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature