On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:14:53PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote: >> >> > I like to discussion about anything related to this, so that I can at >> > least get an idea what the consensus is. >> >> DSC 1 and DSC 5 have some implications about "the Debian system" vis-a-vis >> non-free, but the plan here is to keep the firmware in a separate >> non-free-firmware analogous to non-free. That seems fine to me. >> >> DSC 1 says we will never "require the use of a non-free component". To me, >> this is the major relevant issue. >> >> Proposals B and C offer users the explicit choice of media. That feels >> clearly compatible with the DSC, as users are not required to use non-free >> bits. >> >> Proposal A will use non-free-firmware by default, but "where possible...will >> include ways for users to disable this". Without the "where possible", I >> think this opt-out is compatible with the DSC. However, if it is not >> possible to disable the non-free-firmware, then it feels like the system is, >> in fact, requiring it. Thus this option, as worded, feels potentially >> incompatible with the DSC. > >It that it says "at boot". That seems to imply that it will get >installed, but it might not get used, which might at least surprise >some people. But maybe that's only for the live images. I don't think we're on the same page here. The point of "at boot" and "where possible" here is just to describe possibilities for how users would interact with the firmware-included media. For example: if a user selected a boot option saying "use no non-free firmware, then it would be neither used *nor* installed. I added "where possible" as I can't state with *100%* certainty that we'd be able to expose that choice in every possible boot method - we haven't worked through all the possibilities yet! If those bits of extra text are causing you problems, then let's remove them? >Note that the SC only says: "require the use of a non-free component". >This can be interpreted as having it installed is not a problem as >long as it's not used. > >I think there are people that want to use the official image but don't >want anything non-free installed, nor want it in the sources.list file. >So they might want to have an installer that supports that. > >So I think I have to agree that the "where possible" is probably not >compatible with the SC. I think it should be more explicit that it will >be possible to disable the use of non-free firmware. Right. See above... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature