Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> > * splitting non-free in subsets;
> > * adding a non-free-firmware area;
>
> I think we don't want either of these, instead we should *add*
> additional Packages files for each of the classes of non-free things
> that people want to be able to isolate from the rest of non-free,
> "firmware" being the first one and probably the only one.
>
> After talking with the apt maintainers on IRC and some
> experimentation, I think this is doable and it definitely does not
> require the GR process.
>
> The parts that need to be patched seem to be:
>
> Each firmware package to use 3-part Section fields like
> non-free/firmware/sound. Initially dak could override all of the
> packages we want in that subcomponent.
It might be less disruptive to add a new field like Subsection; that'd avoid
the need to change any of archive tools -- including ones not used on the
official archive, like reprepro.
> dak for dealing with 3-part Section fields, adding the new
> non-free/firmware component, generating the new Packages files and
> adding them to Release files.
Turns out you don't need to mess with dak; it's an one-liner to produce such
a Packages file:
grep-dctrl -FDescription firmware /var/lib/apt/lists/apt.angband.pl:3142_debian_dists_unstable_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
(Obviously, this should be ｢-FSubsection firmware｣ or [-FTag use::firmware｣
or whatever way you want to mark subsets.)
Then you generate Release and sign it.
Obviously encapsulating such a feature as an option of dak would be
reasonable, but it's in no way dak exclusive.
> d-i for adding the non-free/firmware component instead of non-free.
>
> Possibly aptitude/packages.d.o/lintian for dealing with 3-part Section fields.
Apt (and aptitude) should work flawlessly: there's security.debian.org
jessie/updates, and we had non-free/non-us in the past.
> Policy for describing 3-part Section fields and listing allowed ones.
>
> Alternatively, we could end the conflation between the Section and
> Components but that would require more changes.
Because Section: implies an unique section, while we want the same package
to be present in both non-free and non-free/firmware, I'd suggest
Subsection: or abusing debtags instead.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 14:13 < icenowy[m]> are they hot enough? ;-)
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ 14:17 < icenowy[m]> I think now in Europe it should be winter? Let
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ the BPi warm you ;-)
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ 14:17 <@KotCzarny> yeah, i have a pc to warm me ;)
Reply to: