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.
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian archive". Kurt
