Re: Review for the non-free-firmware template in apt-setup
RL wrote
> Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> writes:
>> Template: apt-setup/contrib
>> Type: boolean
>> Default: false
>> # :sl1:
>> _Description: Use contrib software?
>> Some additional software has been made to work with Debian.
>
> I read this (and especially "has been made to work") as saying this is
> about software that has been specifically designed for debian. im not
> sure that is what you intend - isnt contrib merely any software that is
> free but depends on non-free software?
This isn't trying to define contrib so much as to express the idea
that it's an assemblage of packages.
>> Though this
>> software is free, it depends on non-free software for its operation. This
>> software is not a part of Debian, but standard Debian tools can be
>> used to install it.
>> .
>
> "a part" -> "part"
That's a "wouldn't hurt" sort of change to include if we're doing
others, but I wouldn't bother otherwise.
> i found "standard debian tools" a bit cryptic - if standard tools can be
> used, what is then need for this question? maybe "if you choose this
> option" is needed somewhere?
This wording might quite possibly go all the way back to the days when
the "standard tools" that people used to install things from contrib
were dpkg and dselect. The point is that things in contrib may not be
officially part of Debian, but they are debian.org .debs.
> (you might consider ""usual" instead of "standard"" to avoid
> confusion with priority of packages and because there is apt and
> aptitude and other choices available. or has debian really standardised
> on one - if so would be better to say "using apt")
Well, remember that this question is about configuring apt, though it
doesn't assume that readers will be familiar with the names of any
particular package management tool.
> i also think "this software is free" will be read by many as meaning you
> dont pay money for it. would "freely licensed" be better?
Using that term somewhere would be a good idea.
>> Please choose whether you want this software to be made available to you.
>
>
> this sounds like you are asking me to actually install the software, as opposed
> to enabling me to install it later... but probably ok
It doesn't sound like that to me, but it's true that this sentence and
the first one aren't doing a great job of communicating the situation.
Maybe if we were reorganising the whole thing we could use something
along the lines of:
_Description: Use contrib software?
Besides the freely licensed software in "main", some other types of
software which are not strictly part of Debian can be made available
for installation with Debian package management tools. The software
in "contrib" is freely licensed, but depends on non-free software
for its operation.
.
Please choose whether this software should be made available for
installation.
(But now I'm getting sick of the word "software"!)
>> Template: apt-setup/non-free
>> Type: boolean
>> Default: false
>> # :sl1:
>> _Description: Use non-free software?
>> Some non-free software has been made to work with Debian. Though this
>> software is not at all a part of Debian, standard Debian tools
>> can be used
>
> As above, plus "not at all a part" -> "not part".
>
>> to install it. This software has varying licenses which may
>> prevent you
>
> "varying" sounds odd to me, suggests a single license chsnges over
> time(?).
> i wonder if it that word should be deleted
The idea is that it varies from package to package, but "various"
would avoid the ambiguity.
>> from using, modifying, or sharing it.
>> .
>> Please choose whether you want to have it available anyway.
>>
>> Therefore I've drafted the following for apt-setup/non-free-firmware:
>>
>> Template: apt-setup/non-free-firmware
>> Type: boolean
>> Default: false
>> # :sl5:
>> _Description: Use non-free firmware?
>> Some non-free firmware has been made to work with Debian. Though this
>> firmware is not at all a part of Debian, standard Debian tools can be used
>> to install it. This firmware has varying licenses which may prevent you
>> from using, modifying, or sharing it.
>> .
>> Please choose whether you want to have it available anyway.
>
> Same comments as above. I suppose there is no contrib-firmware (yet?)?
It seems unlikely to turn up, and even less likely that Debian would
bother to go through a General Resolution to reorganise the repository
layout for it.
>> Differences:
>> - non-free → non-free-firmware
>> - software → firmware
>> - :sl1: → :sl5:
>>
>> I don't think we need to go into more details about why there are
>> different components, why non-free-firmware was split out of non-free,
>> etc. After all, those questions are only asked in expert mode, and
>> I'd hope expert users to have heard about our move to supporting this
>> new non-free-firmware component… Hopefully we'll have some release notes
>> about it, possibly installation guide updates, etc.
>
> I agree you dont want any of that stuff here. I do think it would help new users,
> even "experts" to say that 'firmware is used to enable support for
> hardware' (is that right?) somewhere
For my hypothetical complete rewrite, something like:
[...]
The software in "non-free-firmware" is code required for enabling
particular hardware, licensed under terms which may prevent you from
using, modifying, or sharing it.
("Enabling"? "Activating"? "Initializing"?)
>> I've selected sublevel 5 instead of sublevel 1, to make sure this isn't
>> going to hurt the translation status (which localechooser uses to warn
>> against incomplete translations at the very beginning of the
>> installation process). Since that template is only shown in expert mode,
>> and since we're adding /pretty late/ in the release cycle, I'd be happy
>> to have translations if translators jump on it, and “sed” the non-free
>> on into non-free-firmware, but we shouldn't block on this… I'll let
>> Holger comment about that part and possibly propose different plans.
>>
>
> (i didnt understand any of that paragraph, but i would hope the firmware
> question is shown to at least as many people as the non-free question,
> since far more people would want to enable it - eg you migth want to do
> firmware question before the more general 'software' one)
(Nothing to say here).
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: