Re: ndiswrapper
moth.debian@gmail.com (Raul Miller) writes:
> On the other hand, we also have debian's policy for Contrib,
> which ndiswrapper does fit. Maybe "policy indicates it should
> be in Contrib, and we do not have a compelling reason for it
> to be in Main" is sufficient basis for deciding?
I don't think so.
It has always been "obvious" to me that Debian's natural desire is for packages
to be in main. Only if a package fails our guidelines for acceptability into
main does the definition of contrib come into play at all, to help us decide
whether we need to push the package all the way out of the distribution into
non-free, or not. So I don't think the current definition of contrb in Debian
policy is relevant unless we decide ndiswrapper doesn't belong in main.
Frankly, I've spent an enormous amount of time thinking about this over the
last week or two. I've even written separate email drafts with long arguments
in favor of each of ndiswrapper belonging in main or in contrib. None felt
compelling enough to post. Taht suggests to me that we're picking nits and
there isn't a substantial deciding issue at the bottom of the pile. Thus, my
current inclination is to believe that any software that complies with the
DFSG and can be installed without breaking the system or forcing the
installation of a package in the non-free tree could be in main.
All of the arguments I've read and/or can come up with for pushing ndiswrapper
into contrib seem to me to relate to whether ndiswrapper is "useful" without
some other, probably non-free, software installed on the system. That seems
like a slippery slope... lots of software in main isn't particularly "useful"
to me. Does it make more sense to stay away from such arguments entirely?
Bdale
Reply to: