On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 07:56 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > No, they should not, otherwise this certification becomes meaningless. > > I see these certifications primarily as a service to Debian users and > not as endorsements of vendors, but as statements of fact. The > consequences to users should stated as part of the certification > output. "This system can run Debian main", "This system is missing > drivers for XYZ", "This system requires non-free firmware", "This > system requires a custom bootloader", "This system requires a custom > kernel", "This system requires a custom kernel and must use sysvinit", > "This system requires an unofficial Debian port", "This system > requires recompiling Debian from scratch" (CPU requirements bumps or > CPU bugs). Basically, a more automated version of InstallingDebianOn. If we require that vendors make those caveats clear in any self- certification, then I agree that this could be useful. > If Debian only certifies systems installed using official d-i images > then we won't be certifying much, since almost everything requires > preinstalled or runtime-loaded non-free firmware for some part of the > system. We would basically only be able to certify RYF devices and may > as well just require FSF RYF certification up-front before a system > can be certified for Debian use. Well I already acknowledged that, didn't I? > Since we already need two tiers of certifications for main vs > non-free, is it really that much of a problem to add some more as long > as our users are informed of the issues they will face? My concern was that the bar you were setting was so low as to be useless for distinguishing systems that are well supported by Debian from those that are not. > Users are > going to buy or acquire those problematic systems anyway, especially > in areas where there are almost zero devices that Debian could be > certified for (for eg mobile devices). If they do and then decide to > run Debian, information about what the consequences are would be > useful. Right. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part