On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 11:54:46AM +0200, Ansgar wrote: >On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 10:37 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> My feeling is that *this* piece is looking uncontroversial - we don't >> need to block on a GR for this. I'm going to continue to push for a GR >> to make the *downstream* decision, i.e. what to do with our images. > >Okay, I think I would be fine with adding non-free-firmware then. I >once proposed doing so in the past after all 😺
*grin* >> As a side issue: I know that pabs is keen on the idea of having things >> appear in both non-free *and* non-free-firmware, but I'm not so >> convinced. How much pain is that likely to cause for ftpmaster and >> dak? I know that debian-cd will need updates to cope with that, and I >> suspect quite a lot of other software may as well. > >So currently dak gets confused a bit when packages move between >main/contrib/non-free (during the time they exist in both places). >pabs' proposal also includes the non-free-firmware files in >pool/non-free (not pool/non-free-firmware or pool/non-free/firmware) >which also differs from what we did previously and will likely confuse >software. ACK. >I would prefer having packages only appear in a single place. Though >this would mean having to add non-free-firmware on existing systems at >upgrade time and some people will forget to do that (similar to the >xxx/updates → xxx-security change). Right. There isn't a 100% good answer here, but I'd personally like to avoid adding *more* special cases if we can. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth
