Web lists-archives.com

Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)

Am 05.12.2017 um 06:02 schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 04.12.2017 19:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
>>> yes, I also agree this would work and be better than the status-quo.
>>> however I'm inclined to believe doing this and adding a fourth repo,
>>> non-free-firmware (additionally to main, contrib and non-free) would
>>> be even better and also not need a GR.
> I agree that having subsets of non-free would be useful for folks who
> don't need all of it, but they should be subset components like
> non-free/firmware rather than top-level components like
> non-free-firmware.


>> I like that this *finally* gets some traction. I have floated a GR
>> before but people seem to be reluctant to have yet another vote.
> I don't think we need a GR to do sub-setting of archive components,
> just dak coders.


>> I guess the question from my side is if the list of archive components
>> in §5 of the Social Contract is supposed to be exhaustive or not. I.e.
>> if we need to change that or not. If we don't need to: yay. (Maybe
>> because we editorially consider firmware not to be software or something.)
> If we go with the subset approach I suggest the firmware packages
> would still be in the non-free/contrib "areas" and still be in the
> pool/non-free directory on our mirrors but would also be mentioned in
> the non-free/firmware/*/Packages files, which would be the firmware
> subset of the non-free component.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature