Re: Re: ndiswrapper
On 9/12/06, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raul Miller writes ("ndiswrapper"):
> > We have a release critical bug filed against ndiswrapper.
> ...
> > So, I'd like to propose that we issue an opinion that ndiswrapper
> > needs to be in contrib, to comply with debian policy.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I agree.
I disagree. You already had that discussion and the discussion went
nowhere because the situation is not as clear cut as those 2 mails
seem to indicate.
Huh?
We have had earlier discussions, but they centered around the
social contract, not the policy I quoted above.
You don't have a consensus within the TC.
I am asking for comments, at the moment, not making a formal
proposal. That said, I hope to make a formal proposal after
discussing any technical issues that come up.
At the moment, ndiswrapper has a release critical bug filed
against it. Going forward, we need to either (a) have a
sufficiently good reason to downgrade the bug, or (b) decide
once and for all how to resolve the bug.
Leaving the situation as it currently is -- with an outstanding
release critical bug -- is not a good idea.
I believe the only viable way to go forward is to redefine contrib in
clearer terms and as it seems to be quite a political issue, I suggest
to go for a GR to settle the issue once for all.
Feel free to go ahead with that. If it looks like you are likely to
change policy, we will certainly take that into account. That
said, this is not a course of action I am going to put much
energy into.
(And no I don't want to reopen the discussion to know if we need a free
NDIS driver or not to make ndiswrapper a *DFSG free software*
acceptable for main)
And, note that there is significant software already in contrib
which has free software that works with it. I think UAE is
a canonical example of this.
In other words, I agree with you here: re-opening that discussion
would be pointless.
--
Raul
Reply to: