Populating non-free firmware?
Hi Debianites Earlier this year, we had a [vote] where we concluded that we'd include non-free firmware in the upcoming Debian 12 release. Steve posted a summary of [next steps] to this list, but it seems like we have some steps missing. The non-free-firmware [component] has been created, but so far it only contains the rasbpi-firmware package. I recall seeing various discussions about /what/ should be included in non-free-firmware (packages that install files under /lib/firmware seems like a reasonable approach), but it's unclear how that's going to happen. Will the archive team be moving those over? Is it up to firmware packagers to re-upload it to the correct component? As far as I recall, there was also some discussion between archive admins on whether non-free-firmware should contain copies of packages, or whether the packages should be moved (along with migration concerns for the latter). Since we're so close to freeze, and since there are lots of bits that will be depending on this if we are to implement this for Debian 12, can we have some basic plan and communication put together for this so that everyone knows what to expect? Thanks to everyone involved in this and putting in the work to make it happen! -Jonathan [vote] https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 [next steps] https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20221002142736.ga1700...@tack.einval.com [component] http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/testing/non-free-firmware/
Bug#1026942: ITP: hut -- A CLI tool for sr.ht
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Taavi Väänänen X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian...@lists.debian.org Control: block -1 by 1023210 * Package name: hut Version : 0.2.0-1 Upstream Author : Simon Ser * URL : https://sr.ht/~emersion/hut/ * License : AGPL-3.0-only Programming Lang: Go Description : A CLI tool for sr.ht hut is a command line tool to interact with the sr.ht code forge (aka SourceHut). hut uses the GraphQL APIs to interact with the various sr.ht services. OpenPGP_0xEF242F709F912FBE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Populating non-free firmware?
On Sat, 2022-12-24 at 11:44 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > The non-free-firmware [component] has been created, but so far it > only > contains the rasbpi-firmware package. Please ensure to include the packages for wifi cards, especially the iwlwifi since I don't use desktop pc. One of the most painful ways to install Debian is to realize that iwlwifi is missing during the netinstall process, while RJ45 cable is not available. As a result, one may download the package using cellphone and find a way to transmit that file to the laptop. If it's iphone then game is sadly over. In the past, such frustration had once irritated one of the new users to whom I have recommended Debian. The user's anger has finally converted into personal/emotional attacks, blaming me as a Debian developer being incompetent to make the wifi card working. As a result, I as a Debian developer, would never recommend Debian to any new user, nor discussing linux with any new user since then. iwlwifi is the very only reason that forced me to never use the the default iso again. That said, my word only counts as a vote for the wifi card packages. Just wanted to mention that iwlwifi may hurt people.
Bug#1026963: ITP: python-consolekit -- Additional utilities for click
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Josenilson Ferreira da Silva X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, nilsonfsi...@hotmail.com * Package name: python-consolekit Version : 1.4.1 Upstream Author : Dominic Davis-Foster * URL : https://github.com/domdfcoding/consolekit * License : MIT/expat Programming Lang: Python Description : Additional utilities for click package required for "whey" building: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1021204
Re: Populating non-free firmware?
On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 12:15 PM M. Zhou wrote: > On Sat, 2022-12-24 at 11:44 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > > > The non-free-firmware [component] has been created, but so far it > > only > > contains the rasbpi-firmware package. > > Please ensure to include the packages for wifi cards, especially > the iwlwifi since I don't use desktop pc. > > One of the most painful ways to install Debian is to realize that > iwlwifi is missing during the netinstall process, while RJ45 cable > is not available. As a result, one may download the package using > cellphone and find a way to transmit that file to the laptop. > If it's iphone then game is sadly over. > > In the past, such frustration had once irritated one of the new > users to whom I have recommended Debian. The user's anger has > finally converted into personal/emotional attacks, blaming > me as a Debian developer being incompetent to make the wifi > card working. As a result, I as a Debian developer, would never > recommend Debian to any new user, nor discussing linux with > any new user since then. > > iwlwifi is the very only reason that forced me to never use the > the default iso again. > > That said, my word only counts as a vote for the wifi card packages. > Just wanted to mention that iwlwifi may hurt people. > > I agree WiFi is needed. I have Realtek and it needs non-free firmware. I also need the binary blobs for AMD Radeon. I use the non-free installer. If not all firmware is going to be included in the installer will there still be a non-free installer image? -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀
Re: Populating non-free firmware?
On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 03:22:17PM -0500, Timothy M Butterworth wrote: > On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 12:15 PM M. Zhou wrote: > > > On Sat, 2022-12-24 at 11:44 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > > > > > The non-free-firmware [component] has been created, but so far it > > > only > > > contains the rasbpi-firmware package. > > > > Please ensure to include the packages for wifi cards, especially > > the iwlwifi since I don't use desktop pc. > I don't think there's any dispute here: we'll put in all of the non-free firmware that's needed that's actually firmware. The problem is a logistics one: the archives need to be split up, there needs to be a transition plan, maybe the easiest way is to do NMU uploads As I read the DPL's message it's a "Hey, we need to do this now and time is running short, let's agree how to do it and actually do it" rather than not including one driver and not another. All best, as ever, Andy Cater
Bug#1026966: ITP: xdoctest -- Xdoctest - Execute doctests. A Python package for executing tests in documentation strings!
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Bo YU X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: xdoctest Version : 1.1.0 Upstream Author : Jon Crall * URL : https://github.com/Erotemic/xdoctest * License : Apache-2.0 license Programming Lang: Python, Description : Xdoctest - Execute doctests. A Python package for executing tests in documentation strings! A rewrite of Python's builtin doctest module (with pytest plugin integration) with AST instead of REGEX. This blocks #1025513 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025513 -- Regards, -- Bo YU signature.asc Description: PGP signature
