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

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes:
> > This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> >> Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> >> It seems to me that there is no reason ndiswrapper can't be available
> >> >> to the installer whether it's in main or contrib.  
> >> >
> >> > AFAIK, it would need to be on the first CD.
> >> 
> >> Ok, then we could put selected packages from contrib on the first CD,
> >> provided they are DFSG-free, without causing any problems.  Since
> >> ndiswrapper certainly is DFSG-free, why not do this?
> >
> > Feel free to submit patches to d-i to have packages from contrib on the
> > first CD and available to the installer.  Historically this has not been
> > the case, and I assume it won't be unless someone presents a convincing
> > argument for why it should be, and then does some of the work of getting
> > it done.
> This is, however, irrelevant to the present question.  The standards
> for main/contrib do not make reference to convenience for the
> installer.  Perhaps they should be; if you think such a question
> should be taken into account, then you should...
> do some of the work of making that change happen.

Well parroted.  Since I can see you don't understand the difference
between main and contrib, I will point you to it.  Please see 2.2.1 and
2.2.2 in policy.  If you diff the first set of bullet points that lay
out criteria for main and contrib, you'll see that the only differnece
is that packages in main :
"must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution
(thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or
"Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package)"

Do you see a Depends, Recommends, or Build-Depends on non-free or
contrib software somewhere in the ndiswrapper source or binary packages?
I don't.  So why is there an argument for changing it?  Since there is
no foundation in policy, do the benefits or technical merits (of which
exactly none have been presented) outweigh ignoring a rather clear
statement from policy?
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: