On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 07:56:45AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: >On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >> No, they should not, otherwise this certification becomes meaningless. > >I see these certifications primarily as a service to Debian users and >not as endorsements of vendors, but as statements of fact. The >consequences to users should stated as part of the certification >output. "This system can run Debian main", "This system is missing >drivers for XYZ", "This system requires non-free firmware", "This >system requires a custom bootloader", "This system requires a custom >kernel", "This system requires a custom kernel and must use sysvinit", >"This system requires an unofficial Debian port", "This system >requires recompiling Debian from scratch" (CPU requirements bumps or >CPU bugs). Basically, a more automated version of InstallingDebianOn. > >If Debian only certifies systems installed using official d-i images >then we won't be certifying much, since almost everything requires >preinstalled or runtime-loaded non-free firmware for some part of the >system. We would basically only be able to certify RYF devices and may >as well just require FSF RYF certification up-front before a system >can be certified for Debian use.
Are you really claiming that systems already shipped with *firmware included* can't be installed using d-i? That's rather bogus, if so. Please explain? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Mature Sporty Personal More Innovation More Adult A Man in Dandism Powered Midship Specialty