Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 3/6/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> 3. The purpose of the ndiswrapper package is to provide an ABI layer
> on top of the Linux kernel that is compatible with the interface for
> Windows NDIS drivers, and that in order to provide this compatability
> layer, no non-free software is required; and
This is a purpose, but not the sole purpose.
This seems clearly established in the proposal:
> 4. The primary use for this compatability layer is to run non-free
> Windows drivers for hardware not directly supported by Linux, though
> a very limited number of free drivers using the NDIS format also
> exist; and
>
> 5. The technical policy in this matter states that: (debian-policy
> 3.6.2.2, section 2.2.1)
>
> [...] packages in _main_
> * must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or
> execution
If "execution" means typical execution (as opposed to some kind of
failure condition or something else which would not be acceptable for
a normal user of the package), then I think it's clear that in the
minds of almost everyone who installs ndiswrapper, non-free Windows
drivers are required for execution of ndiswrapper.
> and: (debian-policy 3.6.2.2, section 2.2.2)
>
> Examples of packages which would be included in _contrib_ are:
> * free packages which require _contrib_, _non-free_ packages or
> packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation or
> execution, and
> * wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free
> programs.
As the normal use of ndiswrapper requires software which has not been
packaged for main, and as ndiswrapper is primarily to make these non
free drivers useful, I think it's sufficiently close to the above
examples.
> THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT
>
> 6. It is appropriate for the committee to consider this request; and
>
> 7. The current ndiswrapper package does not require any non-free
> software at either compilation time or installation time to fulfill
> its designated purpose; and
Point 7 seems to require we ignore points 4 and 5, and accept point
3 as describing the normal use of ndiswrapper.
> 8. As such the ndiswrapper package complies with current technical
> policy as regards to its suitability for main; and
>
> 9. If the ndiswrapper package come to depend on non-free software at
> compilation time or installation time, such as by prompting the user
> for a Windows driver CD, at that time the ndiswrapper package would
> be required to be moved to contrib.
If this a salient point, then 2.2.1 should be changed to read
"must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or installation"
instead of the current
"must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or execution"
> IN ADDITION
>
> 10. The committee endorses the decisions of the maintainer of ndiswrapper
> and the ftpmaster team in including the package in the main component
> as being in compliance with Debian technical policy; and
>
> 11. The committee endorses the existing policy on the suitability of packages
> for the main and contrib components; and
It seems to me that either
[1] we should be recommending policy be changed (so that it's clear that
execution requirements of nearly all users is not relevant when
determining whether a package belongs in contrib, and perhaps removing
the reference to "wrapper packages" or perhaps providing a definition
which clearly excludes ndiswrapper), or
[2] we should be recommending a different course of action with
ndiswrapper.
I vote against this proposal.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: