Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
> Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates,
> except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
I think that may be true from the perspective of what Debian is *allowed*
to do, but not in the sense of the guidance that the project is providing
to the team maintaining the installer and the install media. They're
asking for the project to tell them what to do here, and I think those
options tell them to do different things with respect to how prominant the
non-free installer is on our communication channels.
B says to make the non-free installer the most prominant and recommended
option, C says to make them roughly equivalent, and D says to maintain
something more like the status quo (although possibly with a bit less
"buried in the basement" difficulty in finding the non-free installer).
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: