Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 3/27/06, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller told this:
> > The ambiguity is in the resolution's interpretation of the quoted
> > policy:
> >
> > ... must not require a package outside of _main_ for
> > compilation or execution ...
> >
> > Does no-operation or substandard operation satisfy requirements for
> > execution?
>
> Well, yes. Consider the case that I write up a compiler for a
> new language in C++ or ruby. Can I put this compiler in main? Even
> if there is no public repository of code in this new language?
That seems to me to be different. The compiler does not require anything
special to be installed to use its full capacity. It needs content, but the
content would typically be supplied by the person using the computer.
If the primary purpose of the "compiler" were to "compile" some pre-packaged
content from commercial vendors, then that would be a good analogy. But
I doubt that that's what you meant.
> What if it was not a compiler, but an emulator of a virtual
> machine? Until there is code that can run on the virtual machine,
> there is nothing for the emulator to show.
This is getting closer to the circumstance I think we're dealing
with here.
Note also that we have put a number of virtual machine emulators
in Config for this very reason (game console emulators).
> The only argument I have seen so far seems to imply that I
> can't package up new emulators or compilers unless I also provide
> free source code for these to process, I am not sure I think that
> expands freedom in any tangible manner.
I think the difference has to do with intent, and expected use patterns
-- not just at the command line, but in overall terms.
And a related question is: what free software effort would be harmed
by putting ndiswrapper in config?
--
Raul
Reply to: