[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

[Wouter Verhelst]
> What if I'm interested in writing such a driver myself, but less
> interested in having to run Windows?

Then you should get busy writing that driver.  Without any such drivers
in existence, it's hard to take this line of reasoning seriously.  I
find it absurd that someone would be interested in writing a Windows
driver but not interested in running Windows to test it on.  If that's
really what you want to do, please say so, preferably with some sort of
evidence.  I hate to have to ask for evidence rather than taking your
word for it, but the scenario seems so contrived that I'm afraid only
evidence will make it seem less so.

> apt-cache rdepends libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2
> Gee, only -dev, -dbg and gcc packages. Isn't that for non-free software?

No, not really.  There's plenty of software, free and otherwise, which
one might wish to compile with g++ 2.95.  Newer g++ versions get
pickier about C++ syntax and semantics, and thus it's reasonable to
retain g++ 2.95 so that people don't have to port their old software to
modern C++.  (Yes, I said "their" old software.  Lots of people have
written C++ code that they want to run on Debian, unlike Windows

Fortunately it seems very few packages in Debian require gcc-2.95 or
g++-2.95 anymore.  So yes, I agree, at some point we should drop the
whole gcc-2.95 source package.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: