Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware
On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 10:49 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:43:45PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > > So you don't want another component, but something that looks like a
> > > component in some places only? I.e. it behaves like a component in
> > > that
> > > it gets its own Packages (and Sources?) indices, but it has neither
> > > its
> > > own area in pool/ nor is it used in packages' Section field.
> >
> > Right. This would be nice for some other use-cases too, like cut-down
> > Packages/Sources files for special-purpose systems.
>
> Correct. And that's why I was actually hoping that something like this
> could actually be a *generalization* of how Packages/Sources files are
> being generated, rather than a new special case to be added---which
> would certainly be a sign of bad design for this proposal.
FWIW in the firmware BoF at debconf I had imagined this as a step after
generating the master Packages/Sources which took those and applied filters
to them to produce derivative versions of various sorts, including sub-
section.
But then I don't know squat about how dak actually works, so maybe that is
what Ansgar wants to avoid.
Ian.
Reply to: