[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main



On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:35:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > After the discussions so far, I'm inclined towards the following two views
> > of our policy on this:
> >     * first, that dependencies are one way -- programs depend on
> >       libraries, but libraries don't depend on the programs that use
> >       them;
> I don't think that can really be true in the general case.  For example,
> we have the "base system" where pretty much everything in base has
> a mutual dependency on pretty much everything else in base.

wget and netcat are in base, but nothing else in the base system depends on
them.

But anyway, as I said to Ian, I'm not trying to deny the existance of
mutual dependencies -- obviously they exist. What I'm getting at is that
not all dependencies are mutual; just because a library isn't "useful"
without some application that uses it (maybe one you write yourself),
that doesn't mean it depends on having some such application installed.

> >     * and second, that programs that only operate when interacting with
> >       non-free programs, whether over the net or via data files, aren't
> >       considered to depend on those non-free programs.
> The issue I thought was important in the context of ndiswrapper was: what
> software has to be installed on the debian system for people to use
> ndiswrapper?
> I'm not sure that this general statement really refutes that position.

The above is the other stem I think's necessary to cover programs
suitable for main that wouldn't be useful in a world where all the
non-free software suddenly disappeared.

I don't have any problem with "non-free software must be involved, but needn't
be installed on the system" as a restatement of the second principle
above. It's independent of the first one though, which is the one that
affects ndiswrapper.

> But I think this case -- <<where root privileges are needed, in order to
> install non-free software, in order to make the package work the way that
> people typically think of as using it>>... I think this case is on the wrong
> side of that line.

I don't think whether root has to be used is a good line to draw --
putting an installer package in main that automatically downloads
a separate copy of the non-free software for each user than runs it
wouldn't be right, imo.

Cheers,
aj

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: