De-/Re-branding

nicholasalipaz · 2015-03-11 18:23:51

After getting everything pretty swell on jessie using BunsenLabs cheatsheet I thought about output of lsb_release -a. Is there any plan to change any of that, or possibly alter useragent string used in browsers? Stock jessie is reading:

PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
VERSION_ID="8"
VERSION="8 (jessie)"
ID=debian
HOME_URL="http://www.debian.org/"
SUPPORT_URL="http://www.debian.org/support/"
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/"

Last edited by nicholasalipaz (2015-03-13 07:02:25)

Ozitraveller · 2015-03-13 00:45:53

De-/Re-branding

nicholasalipaz · 2015-03-13 07:03:00

Ozitraveller wrote:

De-/Re-branding

Your title is better so I updated it on the main post.

johnraff · 2015-03-15 03:08:17

Peoples' ideas may vary on this one.

mod/dev hat off/
My personal feeling is to leave everything at standard Debian. All we're planning to add is the kind of configuration changes any user could have put on a standard vanilla Debian setup. I can see there is room for other opinions on this though...

pvsage · 2015-03-15 03:20:03

^ I agree.

Rebranding in the live builds is...a matter for discussion. The "official" Debian Live policy is only to change things if absolutely necessary to have a usable Live environment, but it might be nice to have, for example, a GRUB background image or lsb-release-bunsenlabs that says "this isn't stock Debian".

Where are we currently standing with regards to nonfree packages like firmware? If we include them in the Live build, we're already deviating from official Debian policy, so this might be a case for "in for a Penny, in for a Pound".

johnraff · 2015-03-15 05:01:19

pvsage wrote:

Where are we currently standing with regards to nonfree packages like firmware? If we include them in the Live build, we're already deviating from official Debian policy, so this might be a case for "in for a Penny, in for a Pound".

Tricky. At the extreme it would mean having two separate live isos, one of which wouldn't work with proprietary wireless hardware.

At the metapackage end, though, it would be quite easy to have a separate bunsen-nonfree package that pulled in all the firmware. Perhaps a hypothetical "bunsen-base" could have it as a recommend? The default installation path would then be to install bunsen-base, bunsen-standard, or bunsen-full plus bunsen-nonfree for those who want it? Those packages would pull in everything else needed.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2015-03-15 11:11:23

pvsage wrote:

Where are we currently standing with regards to nonfree packages like firmware? If we include them in the Live build, we're already deviating from official Debian policy, so this might be a case for "in for a Penny, in for a Pound".

I feel it is absolutely imperative to include the contrib & non-free components in the BunsenLabs sources.list.

The reason why I used #! in the first place was because when I was a n00b I wanted to install Debian but I couldn't decipher the somewhat arcane and intricately scattered instructions on the Debian website relating to getting non-free firmware working.

Things have changed somewhat in Debian now that "unofficial" ISO images are available with the non-free firmware already included but this is still not immediately obvious to the newcomer -- we have many posts on the Debian forums lamenting Debian's "shortcomings" in this respect merely because the poster is not familiar with the Debian Free Software Guidelines or their practical ramifications.

damo · 2015-03-15 13:07:25

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

pvsage wrote:
Where are we currently standing with regards to nonfree packages like firmware? If we include them in the Live build, we're already deviating from official Debian policy, so this might be a case for "in for a Penny, in for a Pound".
I feel it is absolutely imperative to include the contrib & non-free components in the BunsenLabs sources.list.
...

Absolutely

BTW I have just tried Mint Mate, which couldn't use my (broadcom) wireless. Fortunately I can use ethernet to pull in the firmware, but that isn't available for everyone and a new user probably doesn't know how to do it.

I'd love it if BunsenLabs worked OOTB for as many people as possible.

johnraff · 2015-03-15 13:35:46

So some kind of opt-out option for non-free, rather than opt-in, sounds like the way to go?

...or just follow the way of #! and have all the non-free by default. Let the more experienced purge the system if they want to...

Last edited by johnraff (2015-03-15 13:37:09)

pvsage · 2015-03-15 15:26:22

Having a separate live image that includes the non-free firmware would be trivial.

Other than firmware, what are we pulling from the non-free area? I know there are a few non-free fonts you guys like, but is there anything else we need from that area?

johnraff · 2015-03-15 15:42:29

In Wally,

contrib:
flashplugin-nonfree
iucode-tool (related to the microcode packages)
ttf-mscorefonts-installer

non-free:
firmware-*
[amd4|intel]-microcode
unrar

unrar is needed by the msfonts installer, possibly others?
I don't know how important the microcode is.

damo · 2015-03-15 15:44:12

What about the multimedia sources, if any? I guess they could be in sources.list, but commented out by default?

tknomanzr · 2015-03-15 18:16:58

I would probably make the multimedia sources an opt-in thing during post install, particularly since deb-multimedia.org is a repo outside of Debian proper.

As for non-free firmwares, I think these are a must-have. So far, on two different laptops, I have been lucky. One one I get wireless, but not wired on the other I get wired but not wireless. Those poor souls with non-free for both would have a rough go of it without that functionality built-in. If I can get a Debian netinst with non-free firmwares, then it seems like Debian has softened their stance just a little.

pvsage · 2015-03-15 22:00:53

^ So far, the only way to find the netinstaller images with the non-free firmware is to search through the Debian Installer's Handbook(TM); they make it difficult to find because they want to discourage use of non-free.

I used to be a fan of the multimedia repos when I thought I needed the acroread package; I then thought it was a necessary evil when handbrake wasn't in the Debian repos. I understand that there are many DVD video authoring tools that are still too problematic for Debian to have in their own non-free section, but aside from that, the biggest argument in favor of deb-multimedia is ffmpeg vs. libav, on which I remain neutral. I suppose we can include a commented-out stanza for deb-multimedia if you guys want it, but I would insist on adding a comment that the repo automatically installs ffmpeg and, if libav-tools is already installed, will replace it with a version that uses the ffmpeg backend.

johnraff · 2015-03-16 03:28:19

Actually, if we're only talking about warning comments, then I wonder if it's worth the extra mess of doing a dpkg divert on soutces.list? Maybe those warnings could go elsewhere? There was some talk about including a Stern Lecture in the welcome script...

...oh, just a minute, those warnings were being discussed in a different thread...

Last edited by johnraff (2015-03-16 03:29:42)

johnraff · 2015-03-16 03:33:44

Other packages I found on my current Waldorf install,

Contrib:
b43-fwcutter (broadcom firmware related)
conky-all (what does that pull in?)
libxnvctrl0 (nvidia thing)

Non-free:
nvidia-detect

nore · 2015-03-16 03:39:57

pvsage wrote:

the only way to find the netinstaller images with the non-free

And yet, some purists wonder why layman derivatives like Ubuntu and Mint exist at all, when you could just use the real thing.

Last edited by nore (2015-03-16 03:41:07)

hhh · 2015-03-16 05:38:14

johnraff wrote:

conky-all (what does that pull in?)

Just a bunch of libraries...
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/conky-all

johnraff · 2015-03-16 07:12:10

^do you know which of them are non-free by any chance?

Head_on_a_Stick · 2015-03-16 07:38:40

johnraff wrote:

^do you know which of them are non-free by any chance?

None of them -- the packages page flags up non-free software very clearly and conky is "clean" is this respect.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2015-03-16 07:51:12

pvsage wrote:

I would insist on adding a comment that the repo automatically installs ffmpeg and, if libav-tools is already installed, will replace it with a version that uses the ffmpeg backend.

There is no "ffmpeg" in Debian jessie, it uses avconv instead -- the "ffmpeg" package in jessie passes any command on to avconv instead.

pvsage · 2015-03-16 08:30:35

^ With the deb-multimedia ffmpeg packages installed, the reverse is true - using avconv is passed to the ffmpeg encoder backend.
EDIT: c.f.
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/libav-tools
http://deb-multimedia.org/dists/testing … ibav-tools

Last edited by pvsage (2015-03-16 08:36:26)

johnraff · 2015-03-16 08:44:13

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

johnraff wrote:
^do you know which of them are non-free by any chance?
None of them -- the packages page flags up non-free software very clearly and conky is "clean" is this respect.

Ah, in Wheezy it's marked as "contrib", but not in Jessie.

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2015-03-11 18:23:51

De-/Re-branding

#2 2015-03-13 00:45:53

Re: De-/Re-branding

#3 2015-03-13 07:03:00

Re: De-/Re-branding

#4 2015-03-15 03:08:17

Re: De-/Re-branding

#5 2015-03-15 03:20:03

Re: De-/Re-branding

#6 2015-03-15 05:01:19

Re: De-/Re-branding

#7 2015-03-15 11:11:23

Re: De-/Re-branding

#8 2015-03-15 13:07:25

Re: De-/Re-branding

#9 2015-03-15 13:35:46

Re: De-/Re-branding

#10 2015-03-15 15:26:22

Re: De-/Re-branding

#11 2015-03-15 15:42:29

Re: De-/Re-branding

#12 2015-03-15 15:44:12

Re: De-/Re-branding

#13 2015-03-15 18:16:58

Re: De-/Re-branding

#14 2015-03-15 22:00:53

Re: De-/Re-branding

#15 2015-03-16 03:28:19

Re: De-/Re-branding

#16 2015-03-16 03:33:44

Re: De-/Re-branding

#17 2015-03-16 03:39:57

Re: De-/Re-branding

#18 2015-03-16 05:38:14

Re: De-/Re-branding

#19 2015-03-16 07:12:10

Re: De-/Re-branding

#20 2015-03-16 07:38:40

Re: De-/Re-branding

#21 2015-03-16 07:51:12

Re: De-/Re-branding

#22 2015-03-16 08:30:35

Re: De-/Re-branding

#23 2015-03-16 08:44:13

Re: De-/Re-branding

Board footer