On 2/27/21 12:12 AM, Holger Wansing wrote: >> Could you link to one or more of those bug reports so I can get an >> assessment of the situation myself? > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2021/02/msg00268.html > https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2020/12/msg00026.html > https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2021/01/msg00001.html > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=971871 > > An older one: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=921861 > > And there was a huge discussion on debian-devel in January regarding > firmware/nonfree etc., starting here: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/01/msg00151.html
I'm not going to read through that huge thread now. Was there any consensus from actual DDs who favored this solution? >> Wouldn't that be a policy violation? If the regular installer enables >> non-free >> sources, I would consider those installer images to be not DFSG-compliant. > > Don't know. Not a lawyer/policy specialist here. > Functionality exists for ages in the installer though... The point is: We separate free and non-free images for a very reason and if you add a mechanism that just silently enables non-free on a system that was installed with the free installer, you are defeating this separation. The firmware issue isn't new and the stance has always been that we separate free and non-free installers for a very reason. People that use the free installers expect that the system installed contains DFSG-compatible components only. A user wants all firmware to be available after installation, they are advised to use the non-free firmware installers. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
