Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 09:59 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit : > Anthony Towns writes: > > > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't > > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate > > assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler, it's a wrapper to > > allow existing drivers to run on Linux. > > This apparently means that you object to translation at the binary > level but not translation at the source level. I guess that's > reasonable in a general sense, it's just not a distinction that policy > or the DFSG makes. Come on, please stop arguing with random, unsuited comparisons, and use common sense : what's the purpose of ndiswrapper without non-free drivers to use it on? We've always put things of the like in contrib, and if we stop doing it, we can remove contrib entirely. Why are you trying so hard to keep it in main? Putting it in contrib doesn't mean we'd stop supporting it. If this is about availability "by default", you'd better work on d-i so that it can load drivers from contrib and non-free if provided, instead of trying to put each and every driver with a firmware or another non-free bit in main. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=