On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote: >> yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo. >> however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo, >> non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non-free) would >> be even better and also not need a GR.
I agree that having subsets of non-free would be useful for folks who don't need all of it, but they should be subset components like non-free/firmware rather than top-level components like non-free-firmware. > I like that this *finally* gets some traction. I have floated a GR > before but people seem to be reluctant to have yet another vote. I don't think we need a GR to do sub-setting of archive components, just dak coders. > I guess the question from my side is if the list of archive components > in ยง5 of the Social Contract is supposed to be exhaustive or not. I.e. > if we need to change that or not. If we don't need to: yay. (Maybe > because we editorially consider firmware not to be software or something.) If we go with the subset approach I suggest the firmware packages would still be in the non-free/contrib "areas" and still be in the pool/non-free directory on our mirrors but would also be mentioned in the non-free/firmware/*/Packages files, which would be the firmware subset of the non-free component. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
