Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> 1+5. As noted in my follow-up comments to Ian's proposal, I think the
> rationale is great, but I draw the opposite conclusion from it. :)
I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on that :-).
> I also didn't see that you had called for a vote on this one, just noted
> that it was "submitted as a votable option", so I was hoping that before
> voting we could put together a couple of other ballot options representing
> other points of view that could be voted on as a group, since that's the way
> that Condorcet works best.
Right. It seems that we're not going to just make a quick decision
here. But that means we need your opinion written up in resolution
Some questions that may help:
* Do you agree with Raul and my view about the policy manual text in
general - ie, paragraphs 3-4, 6(first instance), 7 and 8 of Raul's
version and paragraph 10 of mine ?
* What other things are like ndiswrapper that you think we all accept
should be in main ? We might be able to suggest possible
distinctions between ndiswrapper and your examples, or between your
examples and (say) a package which Depends: on a non-main package.