Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2019-02-24 Thread Hideki Yamane
Hi, On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 16:44:39 +0100 Ansgar wrote: > Sadly no; I think some later discussion made me doubt that there was > indeed consensus about having non-free-firmware (and only that and not > non-free-doc, non-free-drivers, non-free-*). Nor about how it would > work. > > I don't think we

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2019-02-24 Thread Ansgar
Hi, Hideki Yamane writes: > Is there any progress about non-free-firmware section? Sadly no; I think some later discussion made me doubt that there was indeed consensus about having non-free-firmware (and only that and not non-free-doc, non-free-drivers, non-free-*). Nor about how it would wor

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2019-02-24 Thread Hideki Yamane
Hi, Is there any progress about non-free-firmware section? > Hi, > > I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section > and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need > to do next? > > Besides the ftp team setting the new section up, I expect the

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2016-01-10 Thread Adam Wilson
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 20:56:08 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > > I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section > > and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need > > to do next? > > I have a qu

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2016-01-10 Thread Adam Wilson
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:27:22 -0500 Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote: > > And btw: > > Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps > > generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source > > software while k

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2016-01-09 Thread Hendrik Boom
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote: > And btw: > Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps > generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source > software while keeping other non-free software, then the name > non-free-firmware

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2016-01-09 Thread Philippe Cerfon
And btw: Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source software while keeping other non-free software, then the name non-free-firmware seems to break the current naming, doesn't it? main contrib non-free These

Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2016-01-09 Thread Philippe Cerfon
Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware > section > and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we > need > to do next? While it's good that at least something happens it's really sad and kinda disturbing to see that a more narro

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2016-01-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Ansgar Burchardt (2016-01-09): > I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section > and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need > to do next? > > Besides the ftp team setting the new section up, I expect the installer > would need changes to enabl

Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2016-01-09 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section > and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need > to do next? I have a question about the implementation; will non-free firmware be in non-fre

Going ahead with non-free-firmware

2016-01-09 Thread Ansgar Burchardt
Hi, I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware section and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we need to do next? Besides the ftp team setting the new section up, I expect the installer would need changes to enable it instead of non-free when non-free