Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
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. email@example.com
"C++ ate my sanity" -- Jon Rabone