Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #232043 > unrolled thread

Debian install Question

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Debian install Question "M.R.P. zensky" <wintermute24x7@icloud.com> - 2021-02-24 18:50 +0100
    Re: Debian install Question IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-02-24 19:00 +0100
      Re: Debian install Question Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2021-02-24 21:20 +0100
        Re: Debian install Question IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-02-24 23:40 +0100
          Re: Debian install Question Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-02-25 00:00 +0100
          Re: Debian install Question Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-02-25 00:40 +0100
            Re: Debian install Question Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2021-02-25 01:50 +0100
              Re: Debian install Question David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-02-25 06:00 +0100
                Re: Debian install Question Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2021-02-25 06:10 +0100
                  Re: Debian install Question David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-02-26 01:30 +0100
          Re: Debian install Question David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-02-25 07:20 +0100
          Re: Debian install Question deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-02-25 08:30 +0100
            Re: Debian install Question "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2021-02-25 08:50 +0100
            Re: Debian install Question Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-02-25 10:50 +0100
          Re: Debian install Question <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-02-25 12:00 +0100
            Re: Debian install Question Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-02-26 13:10 +0100
              Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-02-26 14:00 +0100
                Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-02-26 19:50 +0100
                  Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-02-26 21:20 +0100
                    Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-02-26 22:10 +0100
                    Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-02-26 22:30 +0100
                      Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-02-27 00:00 +0100
                        Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-02-27 09:30 +0100
                        Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-02-28 18:10 +0100
                          Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-02-28 20:20 +0100
                            Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-02-28 20:30 +0100
                              Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-02-28 21:30 +0100
                          Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-01 10:40 +0100
                            Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-03-01 14:00 +0100
                            Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-03-01 15:30 +0100
                            Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-03-01 20:20 +0100
                          Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-01 14:20 +0100
                            Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-03-02 21:00 +0100
                              Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-02 22:30 +0100
                                Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-03-03 00:30 +0100
                                  Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-03 04:10 +0100
                                    Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-03 16:40 +0100
                                      Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2021-03-04 11:20 +0100
                                      Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-04 18:50 +0100
                                        Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-03-04 21:50 +0100
                                          Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-03-05 02:00 +0100
                                        Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-04 21:50 +0100
                                          Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-05 18:00 +0100
                                            Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-05 20:40 +0100
                                              Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-06 02:50 +0100
                                                Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-06 04:30 +0100
                                      Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-04 18:50 +0100
                                    Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-03-03 21:10 +0100
                                  Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-03 16:30 +0100
                                    Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-03-03 21:20 +0100
                                      Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-03 22:50 +0100
                                        Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-03-04 00:20 +0100
                                          Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-03-04 04:30 +0100
                  Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question] Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-02-28 16:40 +0100
          Re: Debian install Question Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2021-02-25 14:00 +0100
        Re: Debian install Question Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-02-25 17:40 +0100
          Re: Debian install Question Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-02-25 17:50 +0100
          Re: Debian install Question Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-02-26 13:20 +0100
            Re: Debian install Question Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-02-26 17:50 +0100
    Re: Debian install Question David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-02-24 19:20 +0100

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#232377 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

Brian wrote:
>On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 11:40:00 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
>> On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> > It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet them, or 
>> > maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at least one 
>> > other person attest that an installation image worked for them (on the target 
>> > hardware).
>> 
>> AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and
>
>That's certainly correct. The effort put into this deserves to be better
>appreciated. They provide a free installer of high quality.
>
>> the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial
>> images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files.
>> So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would
>> be expected to vet.
>
>I am less sure that the Debian Images Team interact wih unofficial.
>I'd be inclined to say that the conribution in unofficial is from a
>DD, who may or not be part of the installer team. It is "unofficail"
>after all.

Time to set this straight, I think...

I'm the team lead and main developer in the Debian Images Team (aka
debian-cd), and I have been for many years now. *I* did the work to
add the unofficial images that include non-free firmware. They're
produced on the same machine as our official images, using the same
software to build them. There's just some small config tweaks, that's
all.

In our team, we are ~always looking for more people to help, both for
testing and development. We're a small group of volunteers, and we're
all also busy doing other things in Debian too. This is the pattern
for most Debian developers, in fact....

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232369 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Thursday, March 04, 2021 12:40:00 PM David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
> Brian wrote: '"+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian
> installer that comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?'
> 
> > > I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> > > team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> > > images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> > > a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
> > > installer.
> > 
> > Well, until and unless some person or group tries to vet those Debian
> > installation images, that may be the best that can be done.
> 
> You cut the context. 





> They wouldn't be "Debian installation images",
> but "non-Debian installers", as quoted above.

Ok.


> 
> I don't want non-Debian installers on cdimage.debian.org, official
> or unofficial. Do bear in mind that the debian-installer in the
> official image is the same debian-installer as in the unofficial
> image. The latter image just contains some extra files, almost
> all of which originate from the kernel team or Debian.
> 
> What I did suggest go into a wiki was the *method* of extracting
> firmware from a particular driver. I notice that there is already
> one fwcutter in my unofficial image (for Broadcom B54xx), but
> I don't know how it works, nor whether it works in the same way
> as one for the p54usb would.
> 
> > It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet
> > them, or maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at
> > least one other person attest that an installation image worked for them
> > (on the target hardware).
> 
> AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and
> the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial
> images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files.
> So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would
> be expected to vet.

If there are non-free non-official Debian installers that add non-free firmware 
or such in order to install on specific hardware, the vetting would be to have 
someone else confirm that the install did indeed work on that hardware.

Maybe I've confused this thread, but all that I'm trying to say is that:

If:

   1) the official Debian installer will not work on some hardware 
configurations, 

and 

   2) the only Debian installer listed on the main page of debian.org is that 
official one

Then:

   1) I'd like to see a (non-snarky) note on that main page that points out 
that installer may not work for everyone, and a little bit about why (hardware 
that doesn't have free drivers or firmware or such)

and

   2) it should include a link to some place (not necessarily the wiki you 
envision), and not necessarily on debian.org (but I think that would be good) 
to installers that work with various hardware configuraions that don't work 
with the official installer

and

   3) as mentioned above, it would be nice if those unofficial installers have 
been vetted by someone to confirm they indeed work on those hardware 
configurations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232409 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 15:47:37 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 04, 2021 12:40:00 PM David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:36:42 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:01:09 PM David Wright wrote:
> > Brian wrote: '"+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian
> > installer that comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?'
> > 
> > > > I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> > > > team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> > > > images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> > > > a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
> > > > installer.
> > > 
> > > Well, until and unless some person or group tries to vet those Debian
> > > installation images, that may be the best that can be done.
> > 
> > You cut the context. 
> 
> > They wouldn't be "Debian installation images",
> > but "non-Debian installers", as quoted above.
> 
> Ok.
> > 
> > I don't want non-Debian installers on cdimage.debian.org, official
> > or unofficial. Do bear in mind that the debian-installer in the
> > official image is the same debian-installer as in the unofficial
> > image. The latter image just contains some extra files, almost
> > all of which originate from the kernel team or Debian.
> > 
> > What I did suggest go into a wiki was the *method* of extracting
> > firmware from a particular driver. I notice that there is already
> > one fwcutter in my unofficial image (for Broadcom B54xx), but
> > I don't know how it works, nor whether it works in the same way
> > as one for the p54usb would.
> > 
> > > It would be nicer if there was some person or group that tried to vet
> > > them, or maybe even suggesting that something like a requirement that at
> > > least one other person attest that an installation image worked for them
> > > (on the target hardware).
> > 
> > AIUI the Debian Install System Team build the Debian installer, and
> > the aforementioned Debian Images Team put it into the unofficial
> > images, along with some extra .debs and a couple of Packages files.
> > So I'm not sure I understand exactly what this person/group would
> > be expected to vet.
> 
> If there are non-free non-official Debian installers that add non-free firmware 
> or such in order to install on specific hardware, the vetting would be to have 
> someone else confirm that the install did indeed work on that hardware.
> 
> Maybe I've confused this thread, but all that I'm trying to say is that:
> If:
>    1) the official Debian installer will not work on some hardware 
> configurations, 
> and 
>    2) the only Debian installer listed on the main page of debian.org is that 
> official one
> Then:
> 
>    1) I'd like to see a (non-snarky) note on that main page that points out 
> that installer may not work for everyone, and a little bit about why (hardware 
> that doesn't have free drivers or firmware or such)

Agreed, and I think there may have been recent improvements.

> and
> 
>    2) it should include a link to some place (not necessarily the wiki you 
> envision), and not necessarily on debian.org (but I think that would be good) 
> to installers that work with various hardware configuraions that don't work 
> with the official installer

Ditto.

IMO it's important that each link to the official downloads is
accompanied by one to the unofficial ones. Otherwise the effect
is like letting go of a blind person's arm without first ensuring
that they know they've reached their destination.

> and
> 
>    3) as mentioned above, it would be nice if those unofficial installers have 
> been vetted by someone to confirm they indeed work on those hardware 
> configurations.

Take amd64 PCs as an example, being perhaps the most popular
variety. There's an installer, DI, for that architecture. It's
bundled in various ways, depending on size of medium (CD/DVD)
and size of download (netinst/xfce). So for netinst, one arrives
at https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-cd/

The official images contain myriads of hardware drivers, most of
them from the linux kernel tree, to make them work on "those
hardware configurations", as you put it.

However, as you know, they lack the firmware that typically makes
the chip on the board know how to do what it does. The unofficial
*images* contain a collection of .debs, each of which contains
related or unrelated collections of firmware in various revisions.

In the example that I took (netinst), all this firmware, plus the
Packages files to describe them, is added to the official image's
contents, including exactly the same DI. Apart metadata text files
describing the contents, there's one binary file, the efi.img,
that contains a few bytes that differ between the two images.
So it really is *the* Debian installer.

Take one firmware .deb as an example, a popular one, iwlwifi.
It contains 56 discrete binary firmware files. Which one (or
two, because it covers both wifi and bt) is selected depends
on the chip in the device.

If a device is sold on a separate card, it's not necessarily
enough to know the model number of the card. Many "identical"
models are sold with various different chips, which will
require different firmware. You might not know which chip you've
got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
the dmesg output.

Being non-free, the firmware usually originates/d from some
manufacturer or other. If the firmware fails to work with the
device, there's not much that Debian can do about it. It might
be something for some sub-sub-group of the linux kernel people,
if the problem lies in how the driver and firmware interact.

So in your scheme, the "unofficial installers" that have to be
"vetted" by someone to confirm they "indeed work on those
hardware configurations" are actually hundreds of different
combinations, each one comprising one particular firmware blob,
plus the same old official installer image:

 iwlwifi-100-5.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
 iwlwifi-105-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
 iwlwifi-135-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
 iwlwifi-1000-5.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
 iwlwifi-2000-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
 iwlwifi-2030-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
 …  …  …  …  …

 ad infinitum …

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232423 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Friday, March 05, 2021 11:56:24 AM David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 15:47:37 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

<cutting the context ;-) >

> If a device is sold on a separate card, it's not necessarily
> enough to know the model number of the card. Many "identical"
> models are sold with various different chips, which will
> require different firmware. You might not know which chip you've
> got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
> the dmesg output.
> 
> Being non-free, the firmware usually originates/d from some
> manufacturer or other. If the firmware fails to work with the
> device, there's not much that Debian can do about it. It might
> be something for some sub-sub-group of the linux kernel people,
> if the problem lies in how the driver and firmware interact.
> 
> So in your scheme, the "unofficial installers" that have to be
> "vetted" by someone to confirm they "indeed work on those
> hardware configurations" are actually hundreds of different
> combinations, each one comprising one particular firmware blob,
> plus the same old official installer image:
> 
>  iwlwifi-100-5.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-105-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-135-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-1000-5.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-2000-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  iwlwifi-2030-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
>  …  …  …  …  …
> 
>  ad infinitum …

It would be nice (imho), but may be difficult. ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232441 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Fri 05 Mar 2021 at 14:30:30 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 05, 2021 11:56:24 AM David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 15:47:37 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> <cutting the context ;-) >
> 
> > If a device is sold on a separate card, it's not necessarily
> > enough to know the model number of the card. Many "identical"
> > models are sold with various different chips, which will
> > require different firmware. You might not know which chip you've
> > got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
> > the dmesg output.
> > 
> > Being non-free, the firmware usually originates/d from some
> > manufacturer or other. If the firmware fails to work with the
> > device, there's not much that Debian can do about it. It might
> > be something for some sub-sub-group of the linux kernel people,
> > if the problem lies in how the driver and firmware interact.
> > 
> > So in your scheme, the "unofficial installers" that have to be
> > "vetted" by someone to confirm they "indeed work on those
> > hardware configurations" are actually hundreds of different
> > combinations, each one comprising one particular firmware blob,
> > plus the same old official installer image:
> > 
> >  iwlwifi-100-5.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-105-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-135-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-1000-5.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-2000-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  iwlwifi-2030-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> >  …  …  …  …  …
> > 
> >  ad infinitum …
> 
> It would be nice (imho), but may be difficult. ;-)

Imagine you are part of the team, and you've volunteered to shoulder
the responsibility for firmware-iwlwifi_20190114-2_all.deb. In order
to vet it, you have to track down, purchase and install 35 different
types of wifi "cards", and over half a dozen more for bluetooth. With
each, you need to run the first half dozen steps of the installer,
presumably by preseed.

I wrote "cards" because you're not just juggling PCI cards here, but
excavating tiny little boards out of the guts of various sorts of
laptop. But you picked an easy option. Many of the ethernet hardware
options are integrated with the mobo.

IMHO, "difficult" doesn't cover it. Nor expensive, nor tedious.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232444 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Friday, March 05, 2021 08:44:26 PM David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 05 Mar 2021 at 14:30:30 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 05, 2021 11:56:24 AM David Wright wrote:
> > > On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 15:47:37 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > <cutting the context ;-) >
> > 
> > > If a device is sold on a separate card, it's not necessarily
> > > enough to know the model number of the card. Many "identical"
> > > models are sold with various different chips, which will
> > > require different firmware. You might not know which chip you've
> > > got until you look at the board, or even read its codes from
> > > the dmesg output.
> > > 
> > > Being non-free, the firmware usually originates/d from some
> > > manufacturer or other. If the firmware fails to work with the
> > > device, there's not much that Debian can do about it. It might
> > > be something for some sub-sub-group of the linux kernel people,
> > > if the problem lies in how the driver and firmware interact.
> > > 
> > > So in your scheme, the "unofficial installers" that have to be
> > > "vetted" by someone to confirm they "indeed work on those
> > > hardware configurations" are actually hundreds of different
> > > combinations, each one comprising one particular firmware blob,
> > > 
> > > plus the same old official installer image:
> > >  iwlwifi-100-5.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-105-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-135-6.ucode   + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-1000-5.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-2000-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  iwlwifi-2030-6.ucode  + official installer  ✓ Vetted  ✓ Passed
> > >  …  …  …  …  …
> > >  
> > >  ad infinitum …
> > 
> > It would be nice (imho), but may be difficult. ;-)
> 
> Imagine you are part of the team, and you've volunteered to shoulder
> the responsibility for firmware-iwlwifi_20190114-2_all.deb. In order
> to vet it, you have to track down, purchase and install 35 different
> types of wifi "cards", and over half a dozen more for bluetooth. With
> each, you need to run the first half dozen steps of the installer,
> presumably by preseed.
> 
> I wrote "cards" because you're not just juggling PCI cards here, but
> excavating tiny little boards out of the guts of various sorts of
> laptop. But you picked an easy option. Many of the ethernet hardware
> options are integrated with the mobo.
> 
> IMHO, "difficult" doesn't cover it. Nor expensive, nor tedious.

That's not how I would do it, and not what I'm trying to suggest.  If person A 
has hardware B and he tries installer C and it works, he reports (or even 
updates a web page  himself) the point that he successfully used installer C 
on hardware B.

Somebody else might do the same for hardware they have.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232364 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Thu 04 Mar 2021 at 10:54:14 (+0000), Leandro neto wrote:
>  I volunteer to be [ ] a mirror on Rio de Janeiro Brasil. I build computers but I don't know about programming leandro

AIUI we're not talking about mirrors, but about building the software
that might eventually be mirrored.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232323 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 21:01:09 -0600, David Wright wrote:

> On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 23:29:15 (+0000), Brian wrote:

[...]

> > > > "+1" for what? Advertising each and every non-Debian installer that
> > > > comes along and is uploaded to unofficial?
> 
> I was under the impression that "The Debian Images Team is a small
> team of people working on creating, testing and distributing Debian
> images for [us]", whereas you seem to be describing something like
> a wiki where any Tom, Dick or Harry dumps their cobbled together
> installer.

Not at all. I specifically had in mind DDs who devise installation
images that are uploaded to unofficial. Are these to be advertised
alongside what is there now?
 
> > My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
> > driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
> > and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
> > are other similar devices.
> > 
> > I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
> > and why it would benefit users. Would it be ok to have it in unofficial
> > as a non-Debian installer?
> 
> Extracting firmware from the device itself is something I've never had
> to do, and wouldn't know where to get started. That might be the sort
> of process to describe in the Firmware wiki, under "Location of
> firmware files".
> 
> Having extracted it, the "naive" user might then follow the
> instructions in the Installation Guide, of course, and then wonder
> why the d-i wouldn't find and load it.

This touches on where in the BTS to report a problem with a non-Debian
installation image.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232310 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 06:29:15 PM Brian wrote:
> On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 16:19:45 -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 02:55:08 PM Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> > No.  Providing a reasonable explanatory text about why some other
> > installer may be required and a link to a place where you can find one
> > or more.
> 
> My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
> driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
> and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
> are other similar devices.
> 
> I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
> and why it would benefit users. Would it be ok to have it in unofficial
> as a non-Debian installer?
> 
> Just a thought!

If you're asking me specifically, I'll say fine with me, as long as there is 
something on the official installer page that reasonably "nicely" explains that 
some people may require an unofficial installer, and a little bit about why, and 
points to a page that leads that person to a variety of installers that might 
fill her needs.

Others may have additional (or different) thoughts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232324 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 10:27:42 -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 06:29:15 PM Brian wrote:
> > On Tue 02 Mar 2021 at 16:19:45 -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 02, 2021 02:55:08 PM Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 01 Mar 2021 at 08:13:13 -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > No.  Providing a reasonable explanatory text about why some other
> > > installer may be required and a link to a place where you can find one
> > > or more.
> > 
> > My installer is aimed at users with an adapter that uses the p54usb
> > driver. It requires firmware that needs to be extracted from the device
> > and there aren't any such files in the non-free archive. I imagine there
> > are other similar devices.
> > 
> > I can easlily provide explanatory text about why my installer is needed
> > and why it would benefit users. Would it be ok to have it in unofficial
> > as a non-Debian installer?
> > 
> > Just a thought!
> 
> If you're asking me specifically, I'll say fine with me, as long as there is 
> something on the official installer page that reasonably "nicely" explains that 
> some people may require an unofficial installer, and a little bit about why, and 
> points to a page that leads that person to a variety of installers that might 
> fill her needs.
> 
> Others may have additional (or different) thoughts.

There are at least half a dozen www.debian.org pages that point to a
non-Debian installation image. Andrei POPESCU has given one route:

  https://www.debian.org/distrib/

What's the problem?

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232327 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Wednesday, March 03, 2021 03:18:25 PM Brian wrote:
> There are at least half a dozen www.debian.org pages that point to a
> non-Debian installation image. Andrei POPESCU has given one route:
> 
>   https://www.debian.org/distrib/
> 
> What's the problem?

I thought the problem was as described in this from Brian:

Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]
From: Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> (resent from debian-user@lists.debian.org)
  To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
  Date: Fri Feb 26 13:41:40 2021

...

A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
(non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
mind!

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232333 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Wed 03 Mar 2021 at 16:41:18 -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 03, 2021 03:18:25 PM Brian wrote:
> > There are at least half a dozen www.debian.org pages that point to a
> > non-Debian installation image. Andrei POPESCU has given one route:
> > 
> >   https://www.debian.org/distrib/
> > 
> > What's the problem?
> 
> I thought the problem was as described in this from Brian:
> 
> Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]
> From: Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> (resent from debian-user@lists.debian.org)
>   To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>   Date: Fri Feb 26 13:41:40 2021
> 
> ...
> 
> A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> mind!

Indeed, that was my characteristion of the issue. However, it appears
to have been addressed by the copious links now existing on the Debian
website.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232337 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Wednesday, March 03, 2021 06:15:03 PM Brian wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 03, 2021 03:18:25 PM Brian wrote:

> > A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> > problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> > with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> > advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> > (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> > mind!
> 
> Indeed, that was my characteristion of the issue. However, it appears
> to have been addressed by the copious links now existing on the Debian
> website.

I'm not sure the escape route is all that obvious, but if you don't have a 
problem, and nobody else has a problem, I guess I don't have a problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232206 — Re: Non-free firmware [was: Debian install Question]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:41:40 +0000
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

...

> A 64-bit netinstall is prominent on the Debian main page. The
> problem with that image is that it is unlikely to suit many users
> with wireless-only connectivity. No obvious escape route is
> advertised. Yes, I know - if a site search is conducted, a better
> (non-free) image will be located. Jumping through hoops comes to
> mind!

Just FTR, some *wired* ethernet cards also require non-free firmware
not present in the standard images:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=895258

I have no idea how common this is with modern NICs.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232076

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:36:58AM +0300, IL Ka wrote:
> >
> > Please do not do that.
> >
> >
> > You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
> >
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/
> >
> > Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.
> >
> 
> I am sorry for giving inadequate advice. Please forgive me as I am new to
> Debian.
> My idea was to install Debian, and then install non-free firmware.
>
I did not mean this as a critizism directly against you.
But the OP asked for the installer WITH the non-free firmware specifically.


> This is the third question about "how to install Debian if I have nic that
> needs non-free firmware" I see in this list on this week.
> 
> So, what is the best practice to do so? Use an unofficial installer that
> contains non-free firmware?
> If so, I believe this info is worth adding to the Debian installation guide
> somewhere in the wiki, so we can give a link to this wiki to newbies.
> It seems that a lot of people face this problem trying to install Debian on
> their laptops.

And it will continue to be a source of confusion with debian. However
there is excellent documentation (wiki and installation manual) for debian.
Unfortunately it seems reading documentation is a burden nobody can be
bothered with.


-H

-- 
Henning Follmann           | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232109

Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> writes:

> You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
> https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/
>
> Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.

I have to ask since I'm on a similar boat. What is this image? Debian
10.8 installer with non-free firmware? It's only a guess, Debian's
latest release is 10.8 but there's usually no third digit in the
version.

But what if someone needs a newer kernel than 4.19 too? My chosen HW
needs kernel 5.1 for wifi and 5.9 for ethernet plus FW from Intel and
Realtek. And no, I don't want to install testing or unstable. Or Ubuntu.

I figured I'll install from a USB stick and I have the debs from
buster-backports for a 5.10 kernel and firmware and hope I can install
those from a USB stick too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232110

Anssi Saari (as@sci.fi) wrote:

> Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> writes:
> 
> > You will find a iso here which includes most of the non-free firmware here:
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images-including-firmware/10.8.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-dvd/
> >
> > Please take the time to read AND understand the information on that site.
> 
> I have to ask since I'm on a similar boat. What is this image? Debian
> 10.8 installer with non-free firmware? It's only a guess, Debian's
> latest release is 10.8 but there's usually no third digit in the
> version.

The installer images have a third version component, because sometimes
they make multiple builds after a given Debian point-release.  E.g. if
there's a problem with the first CD build after Debian 10.8 (installer
version 10.8.0) they might release installer version 10.8.1.

A newer installer version will only have changes to the installer, not
to the packages that end up installed on the Debian system when you're
all done.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232149

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Jo, 25 feb 21, 18:30:55, Anssi Saari wrote:
> 
> But what if someone needs a newer kernel than 4.19 too? My chosen HW
> needs kernel 5.1 for wifi and 5.9 for ethernet plus FW from Intel and
> Realtek. And no, I don't want to install testing or unstable. Or Ubuntu.
> 
> I figured I'll install from a USB stick and I have the debs from
> buster-backports for a 5.10 kernel and firmware and hope I can install
> those from a USB stick too.
 
Try installing in expert mode (if the image boots), as far as I recall 
there was an option to enable and use backports.

Hope this helps,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232157

Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> writes:

> Try installing in expert mode (if the image boots), as far as I recall 
> there was an option to enable and use backports.

Thanks. Well, the referenced LWN discussion mentioned tethering and
indeed, plugging in my phone and enabling USB tethering resulted in a
detected network connection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232049

On 2021-02-24 09:47, M.R.P. zensky wrote:
> Hello I am installing Debian on a amd processor computer. I connect to the net with wifi. I have tried the net install iso and it did not work. I think I need the unoficial stable non free firmware included. I select a mirror site but Here I am confused about what iso file I want. I am also assuming that I need an image for cd-rom. Any help would be apreciated.


I suggest that you try an "unofficial" installer that includes non-free 
firmware:

https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/


David

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web