On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:51:46PM -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: >On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:20:09PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 03:33:27PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> > > I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian >> > > *required* a non-DFSG image. >> > >> > would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official >> > images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"? >> >> It would be nice to have both installers presented on the front page, so >> users >> can choose. I have no strong opinion on whether the "plus" installer would be >> called official or not. > >Same here. I've seconded Gunnar's proposal because it's the one which adds the >option. However, referring to it as official is not something I'm fully >comfortable at this point.
ACK. >I'm wondering how the d-i team feels about that (having the image with non-free >bits called unofficial). Or whether it makes any sense at all, say, having such >an essential component developed by fellow Debian members, using official >Debian resources, and still being named 'unofficial', just for our convenience >(?) Well, when we started making the "firmware-included" images it seemed like a clear way to separate them from the *official* free images. It's a bit like having non-free included on ftp.debian.org - we push things to a slightly different area. We already had the "unofficial" area on cdimage.debian.org as a catch-all for other media, so I just added a new unofficial/non-free tree there. >Btw, thanks Steve and all involved on this front, I'm just a bit confused and >appreciating the discussion. Cool. :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user' as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead
