Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:39:42AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Bart Martens dijo [Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:59:44AM +0200]:
> > > > If you mean official media, this is more radical than Steve's proposal.
> > > > It would permit arbitrary non-free packages as long as users were
> > > > informed.
> > > >
> > > > If you mean unofficial media - that's the status quo. In which case,
> > > > this option is the same as Simon's and none of the above.
> > > >
> > > > Ross
> > > >
> > >
> > > /packages from the non-free *firmware* section/
> >
> > My proposal does not add such new section ...
>
> Right. I would _oppose_ your proposal if it is to appear in the
> ballot, because a freeness _win_ of Steve's proposal is that... People
> that need to enable non-free firmware don't need to pull in all of
> non-free in order to keep it updated.
>
> I often install packages for getting to know them, just because they
> appeared in my list. And my list nowadays includes non-free because of
> some firmware. So I have installed non-free software without
> noticing. Splitting non-free firmware grants the user some more system
> freeness guarantees.
My proposal does not forbid adding such new section.
>
> Greetings,
Reply to: