Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
Hi Kurt!
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Hey Wouter!
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> >On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >> system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
>> >> component by default in the apt sources.list file.
>> >
>> >What's the rationale for this one?
>> >
>> >I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
>> >the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
>> >packages from that component are useful for the running system (or if
>> >the user explicitly asked to do so).
>>
>> That's a fair point, my text was unclear here. Let's tweak it:
>>
>> "Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the target system
>> will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware component by
>> default in the apt sources.list file."
>>
>> Does that sound better?
>
>Is this something you want to adopt?
Yes, I think it improves things.
>Would a non-free-firmware section in the archive be useful, so
>that other non-free software is not enabled by default?
Definitely, that's an important feature here IMHO. We already have
that new section available, it's just not supported everywhere yet.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"C++ ate my sanity" -- Jon Rabone
Reply to: