On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 4:50 PM Paul van der Vlis <p...@vandervlis.nl> wrote:
> Op 23-04-2022 om 16:10 schreef Andrey Rahmatullin: > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 03:13:29PM +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote: > >>> I see several possible options that the images team can choose from > here. > >>> However, several of these options could undermine the principles of > Debian. We > >>> don't want to make fundamental changes like that without the clear > backing of > >>> the wider project. That's why I'm writing this... > >> > >> I have an idea for an extra option: > >> > >> 6. Put the closed source firmware somewhere in the Debian images, but > never > >> install closed source firmware by default. "No" should be the default. > > That's the option 3 more or less. > > Option 3 says to publish two sets of images. > And it says nothing about defaults. > > ---- > 3. We could stop pretending that the non-free images are unofficial, and > maybe move them alongside the normal free images so they're published > together. This would make them easier to find for people that need them, > but is likely to cause users to question why we still make any images > without firmware if they're otherwise identical. > ---- > This is the option I like. As a user who needs the closed source binary blobs they should be easier to find. > >> to put "non-free" into sources.list should also be an non-default > choice, > >> even when you install closed source firmware. > > No, that's a bad idea, which is one of the main reasons for the option 5. > > The idea is not to promote closed source firmware in any way. Have it > available, but only for the people who really want it. > > Maybe it's also an idea to put the firmware in a seperate partition. > > With regards, > Paul > > BTW: I sell Debian media like USB-sticks. I know about the problems > people have to choose a medium-type etc. > > > -- > Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer Groningen > https://vandervlis.nl > >
