On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 11:51:08AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >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 >firmware is required; maybe it still needs to ask for non-free as well >for other reasons? Other teams might also need to add the new section, >e.g. the release team, packages.d.o, ... I expect the list to be >hard-coded in quite a few places. > >Then the release notes need to document that "non-free-firmware" might >have to be added to sources.list.
Are we sure on the name? Previous commenters have suggested that "non-free/firmware" might be better. I understand that may be more awkward to implement in terms of directories... :-) >Finally we need to identify the packages that should move there. I >guess all non-free packages named "firmware-*" would be a good match. IME there are also some matching "*-firmware" and "*microcode". -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...