Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Adam McKenna <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:56:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I think this is clearly incorrect. The DFSG and the SC do not say
>> anything about the requirements for main that I can see.
>> And it is the *job* of the tech-ctte to resolve disputes.
> I don't enjoy speaking with you, and I'm going to stop now.
Um, ok, whatever.
So, for the record: The DFSG and the SC don't say anything about the
requirements for main; the tech-ctte exists to resolve disputes such
as this; and I have no particular stake one way or the other about
where ndiswrapper lands. It seems to me to be a quintessentially
technical issue, to which some people have attached a status thing, so
that if it lands in contrib, it is being somehow demeaned or
shortchanged. (And then, some people have gone further, and figure
that if "their software" is being demeaned, then they are being
ndiswrapper seems to me like a useful tool; our standards for
main/contrib distinctions are not crystal clear, and call for the
exercise of judgment. In the first instance, that judgment is the
maintainer's to make, but it is the ftpmasters' job to review it and
make their own independent determination about where it belongs in the
archive. If there is a dispute, tech-ctte is there to settle it.