On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:59:07AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > 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. You have no idea what you're talking about. Which isn't surprising, considering you're apparently not a developer, maintainer, applicant or any other sort of regular contributor to Debian. In future, if you've got questions, please ask, rather than degrading the quality of the lists by doing the Usenet troll thing of posting authoritative statements that are complete wrong in order to get other people to correct you. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature