Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:51:46PM -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:20:09PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 03:33:27PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> > > I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
>> > > *required* a non-DFSG image.
>> >
>> > would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
>> > images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"?
>>
>> It would be nice to have both installers presented on the front page, so users
>> can choose. I have no strong opinion on whether the "plus" installer would be
>> called official or not.
>
>Same here. I've seconded Gunnar's proposal because it's the one which adds the
>option. However, referring to it as official is not something I'm fully
>comfortable at this point.
ACK.
>I'm wondering how the d-i team feels about that (having the image with non-free
>bits called unofficial). Or whether it makes any sense at all, say, having such
>an essential component developed by fellow Debian members, using official
>Debian resources, and still being named 'unofficial', just for our convenience (?)
Well, when we started making the "firmware-included" images it seemed
like a clear way to separate them from the *official* free
images. It's a bit like having non-free included on ftp.debian.org -
we push things to a slightly different area. We already had the
"unofficial" area on cdimage.debian.org as a catch-all for other
media, so I just added a new unofficial/non-free tree there.
>Btw, thanks Steve and all involved on this front, I'm just a bit confused and
>appreciating the discussion.
Cool. :-)
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user'
as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead
Reply to: