On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: >On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: >> >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote: >> >> > I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original >> >> > proposal. >> >> > >> >> > ================================= >> >> > >> >> > The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer >> >> > images >> >> > and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the >> >> > Debian >> >> > archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way >> >> > that the >> >> > user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones. >> >> > >> >> > ================================= >> >> >> >> Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/ >> > >> >Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short, >> >keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping >> >those >> >users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free >> >installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware >> >to a >> >separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that >> >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, >> >what >> >is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B. >> >> Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already >> started*, where we're going to move firmware things to >> non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or >> non-free-firmware sections" in your text. > >I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such >new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the >started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free" >because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today. > >Does this cover your concern?
No, it doesn't. Your words may cover where those packages are *today*, but they most likely will *not* be in "non-free" when we come to make the changes. "non-free-firmware" != "non-free". Please tweak your wording to be more flexible and cover what we're aiming to do. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
