On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:25:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > 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*, Exactly. > but they most likely will *not* be in "non-free" when we come to make > the changes. "non-free-firmware" != "non-free". I understood that part. > Please tweak your > wording to be more flexible and cover what we're aiming to do. I think we have a different view on which proposal is the most flexible. And I understand that you want my proposal to cover what you are aiming at. > > -- > Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com > "This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess
