On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:42:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:15:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > Ok, we should probably find a different word to describe this > > > relationship. > > > Perhaps it could be phrased that ndiswrapper has a need for the presence > > > of some software which is not available in debian main. > > But it doesn't -- ndiswrapper will sit there quite beningly if the non-free > > driver isn't present. It'll do everything it's supposed to -- link with the > > kernel and provide an ABI for other software -- without any errors. > Ok, but that's not everything it's supposed to do. > If that's all it needed to do then the code implementing the ABI > could do (*0)= "dump core" and that would be fine. Eh? If I found something that claimed to implement the C string library (strcpy, strcmp, strstr, etc) but just dumped core everytime it was invoked, I wouldn't say it implemented the ABI at all. Some ABI's leave some behaviour undefined (such as free(x); free(x);), but none leave all of it undefined. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature