Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > > >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> > > >> > I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > =================================
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> > > >> > and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
> > > >> > archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
> > > >> > user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > =================================
> > > >>
> > > >> Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short,
> > > >keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those
> > > >users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free
> > > >installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
> > > >separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that
> > > >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
> > > >is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
> > >
> > > Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already
> > > started*, where we're going to move firmware things to
> > > non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or
> > > non-free-firmware sections" in your text.
> >
> > I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such
> > new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the
> > started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free"
> > because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today.
>
> I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
> that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed.
not
He wants "non-free-firmware section" mentioned in proposal C, see above.
> I suggest you
> just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
> archive".
That would indeed leave out the existing section name. I'll consider it.
>
>
> Kurt
>
Reply to: