[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Antoine Beaupré dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400]:
> > Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
> > support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
> > [4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
> > yet to make use of this support, but it's started! :-)
> This, however, strikes me as odd: I would have expected this to be part
> of the proposal, or at least discussed here, not implemented out of band
> directly. I happen to think this is a rather questionable decision: I
> would have prefered non-free to keep containing firmware images, for
> example. Splitting that out into a different component will mean a lot
> of our users setup will break (or at least stop receiving firmware
> upgrades) unless they make manual changes to their sources.list going
> forward. This feels like a regression.
> In general, I feel we sometimes underestimate the impact of sources.list
> changes to our users. I wish we would be more thoughtful about those
> changes going forward. It seems like this ship has already sailed, of
> course, but maybe we could be more careful about this in the future,
> *especially* since we were planning on having a discussion on
> debian-vote about that specific issue?

You make a very important and interesting point. I guess that part of
the fallout might be offset by the changes being part of the release
notes, and being enabled in practice starting with the new

However, just pushing a not-well-thought-idea: Would dak, apt, or any
other bit of our infrastructure be very angry if non-free-firmware
were to be not an additional component, but a strict subset of

That is, all packages accepted to non-free-firmware would still appear
as part of non-free (and thus, users having non-free listed would
still continue to receive updates).

I am sure this would have as a consequence the prominence of several
thorns I haven't thought about :-) but it might be a way to address
your point.

> Gulp, such a big jump! :) I personnally feel that we should make it
> easier for people to install Debian, but I'm not quite sure I'm ready to
> completely ditch the free images just yet. Maybe we could just promote
> non-free images a little better, but I would much rather keep the free
> images around. I guess that makes me a supporter of option "B", if I
> understand correctly, but I am known for struggling with parsing GR
> proposals. :)

As the proposer of option B: That's basically what I want. "Here,
these images have little bits of evil, but are necessary to boot on
most modern hardware. Of course, we also carry those, that are
completely non-evil".

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: