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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware



Quoting Holger Levsen (2022-09-01 18:40:30)
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > A large part of installations now run inside virtual machines and have no
> > use for device firmware. 
> 
> yes.
> 
> > Having a free-software-only installer is an easy
> > way for image builders to ensure that anything they build will be
> > redistributable.
> 
> no. if you build images, you don't use d-i but fai, debuerreotype, mmedebstrap
> debootstrap or your-custom-script-being-used-since-1997 or something else, but
> hardly anyone uses d-i for this use-case.

I suspect that the above response provides a clue to why some find it
important to label an install image as "official" and others find that
irrelevant: I am the developer of one such bootstrapping tool - boxer -
but I consider my tool stable only when it can mimick the installation
as done by debian-installer.  My tool is far from that goal, but that
goal nevertheless exists for my view on what is a canonical Debian
system: A system spawned using official Debian install process.

When you use debootstrap (which for *most* parts is the canonical tool)
then you are left with a few files missing (at some point that included
/etc/resolv.conf and /etc/apt/sources.list) and filing a bugreport that
packages behave weirdly for a system with those core files missing will
most likely lead to that bugreport being quickly closed as not-a-bug.
Which is the reason that I consider debian-installer an important part
of our main deliverable.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: