On Thursday, March 04, 2021 12:40:00 PM David Wright wrote: > On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote: > Brian wrote: '"+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian > installer that comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?' > > > > I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small > > > team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian > > > images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like > > > a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together > > > installer. > > > > Well, until and unless some person or group tries to vet those Debian > > installation images, that may be the best that can be done. > > You cut the context.
> They wouldn't be "Debian installation images", > but "non-Debian installers", as quoted above. Ok. > > I don't want non-Debian installers on cdimage.debian.org, official > or unofficial. Do bear in mind that the debian-installer in the > official image is the same debian-installer as in the unofficial > image. The latter image just contains some extra files, almost > all of which originate from the kernel team or Debian. > > What I did suggest go into a wiki was the *method* of extracting > firmware from a particular driver. I notice that there is already > one fwcutter in my unofficial image (for Broadcom B54xx), but > I don't know how it works, nor whether it works in the same way > as one for the p54usb would. > > > It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet > > them, or maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at > > least one other person attest that an installation image worked for them > > (on the target hardware). > > AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and > the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial > images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files. > So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would > be expected to vet. If there are non-free non-official Debian installers that add non-free firmware or such in order to install on specific hardware, the vetting would be to have someone else confirm that the install did indeed work on that hardware. Maybe I've confused this thread, but all that I'm trying to say is that: If: 1) the official Debian installer will not work on some hardware configurations, and 2) the only Debian installer listed on the main page of debian.org is that official one Then: 1) I'd like to see a (non-snarky) note on that main page that points out that installer may not work for everyone, and a little bit about why (hardware that doesn't have free drivers or firmware or such) and 2) it should include a link to some place (not necessarily the wiki you envision), and not necessarily on debian.org (but I think that would be good) to installers that work with various hardware configuraions that don't work with the official installer and 3) as mentioned above, it would be nice if those unofficial installers have been vetted by someone to confirm they indeed work on those hardware configurations.
