Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)
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.
> 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.
> 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.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: