Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Here's my current feelings on the ndiswrapper issue:
(1) ndiswrapper should be made available by us.
(2) the question is: should it be in main or config?
(3) ndiswrapper sometimes needs to be recompiled to be useful
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2006/04/msg00278.html
(4) the primary reason for the package to be in main is cipe.
(5) cipe has had no development attention for several years.
(6) software being stable is not sufficient reason for it to be
removed from the archive.
(7) ndiswrapper's primary use is with non-free software (which
suggests it should be available in Contrib)
(8) there are practical problems with Contrib and some people
would be unhappy with ndiswrapper being in Contrib because
of those practical problems.
Since the primary question (should ndiswrapper be in Main or
Contrib) is a social contract issue, the determining factors in
any proposal for resolving this issue should be based on social
contract issues.
Probably the most important such issue is: what is best for
the free software community?
This is a value judgement, so I think that we can only issue
advice. I think we should avoid making a ruling that is any
stronger than "advice" on this issue.
However, there are other problems here (for example, the
practical problems with Contrib) which perhaps should also
get some attention from us.
* * * * *
That, I think, characterizes the problem, what about solutions?
One crucial issue is cipe. CIPE is not getting any development
attention and if it were engaging developer interest this issue might
be simpler to resolve.
Possible development efforts:
[a] Port CIPE to a native linux interface. This eliminates the
conflict and would allow ndiswrapper to go into Contrib.
[b] Upgrade the protocol, providing options which could provide
better security.
Of course non-CIPE development efforts could also occur, for
example
[c] Other free software could be written which uses the ndiswrapper
interface.
I think we should suggest that such development efforts would be
a good thing for the free software community and that the question
of where ndiswrapper goes be tied to such development efforts.
I think that if none of the above occur, if the current state of affairs
continues to persist, that CIPE be orphaned. If CIPE remains the
only reason for ndiswrapper to be in main, and no one cares to
address any CIPE issues (either maintaining the current interface
or using a different interface) then eventually it will vanish and
eventually ndiswrapper will need to be moved.
If ndiswrapper becomes a hotbed of cross-platform portable free
software, then it should remain in Main.
If the only software development for CIPE winds up removing the
dependence on ndiswrapper (or if it turns out that CIPE has a
hostile author who forbids that kind of porting) then ndiswrapper
does not belong in Main and should be moved to Contrib.
I think this characterizes the range of potential solutions. Basically, I
think we could just lay out these alternatives and recommend a wait
and see approach. (Wait and see whether CIPE represents a
real free software effort or whether it is really just a red herring.)
But maybe there's a better approach that takes into account
these possibilities?
Comments?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: