Marco d'Itri wrote: > don@donarmstrong.com wrote: >>Is there a dependency relationship between the package that provides >>the driver and the firmware itself? > > I already explained some days ago why it's good and useful to not have a > strong dependency. Perhaps you could point to a particular message in which you explain how this is acceptable under Policy and the SC? I saw several messages in which you gave various practical reasons why you would prefer the packages in main (though I see no reason a technical solution couldn't be provided while keeping the packages in contrib), but I didn't see anything where you argued that a package in main that requires software not in our archive was not a violation of Policy and the Social Contract (other than many unsupported assertions that only the hardware required the firmware, not the driver). > Also, for some drivers there can be no package at all > providing the firmware files. That's irrelevant; packages go in contrib when they depend on software not in the archive at all, not just when they depend on packaged software in contrib or non-free. Otherwise, any package in contrib could be put in main if the non-free packages on which it depends were dropped from the Debian archive, which makes no sense. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature