Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
Stefano Rivera <email@example.com> writes:
> Reading this in LWN reminds me that I would don't agree with this
> I'd probably vote both the 3:1 option and the 1:1 above NOTA. This is
> because I believe that if enough of us agree, we should update the
> Social Contract to explain how our non-free-firmware section works, and
> what the images provide.
My concern is that this in proposal A:
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
and this in the Social Contract:
The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
although they have been configured for use with Debian.
fit together oddly. I think I can see the reasoning behind why folks
don't believe they conflict, but I must admit that my first reaction is
that they conflict. I think the implication of them not conflicting is
that our official installers are not part of the Debian system? Which
seems like an odd conclusion to me.
I don't really want to be the proponent of an option here, but I'm a bit
worried about not addressing this head-on. So far, no one else who
supports including non-free firmware in the installer (as I do) has also
indicated that this bothers them, though, which to me argues against
adding yet another option for something that maybe only I care about.
(Proposal B and proposal C both avoid this problem. I personally prefer
proposal A, though.)
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>