Am 05.12.2017 um 06:02 schrieb Paul Wise: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: >> On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote: >>> yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo. >>> however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo, >>> non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non-free) would >>> be even better and also not need a GR. > > I agree that having subsets of non-free would be useful for folks who > don't need all of it, but they should be subset components like > non-free/firmware rather than top-level components like > non-free-firmware. +1 >> I like that this *finally* gets some traction. I have floated a GR >> before but people seem to be reluctant to have yet another vote. > > I don't think we need a GR to do sub-setting of archive components, > just dak coders. +1 >> I guess the question from my side is if the list of archive components >> in §5 of the Social Contract is supposed to be exhaustive or not. I.e. >> if we need to change that or not. If we don't need to: yay. (Maybe >> because we editorially consider firmware not to be software or something.) > > If we go with the subset approach I suggest the firmware packages > would still be in the non-free/contrib "areas" and still be in the > pool/non-free directory on our mirrors but would also be mentioned in > the non-free/firmware/*/Packages files, which would be the firmware > subset of the non-free component. +1 Cheers jonas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature