Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Stephen Gran <email@example.com> writes:
> 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)"
This is not a complete list. It may not require a package outside of
main for compilation or execution. One consequence of that, is that
it must not Depend on such packages. But this is not the *only*
consequence, it is merely the one being spelled out.
It is certainly not true that a package in contrib can be moved to
main just be removing the package dependencies. The further question
is: can it be run without the non-free software?
I still am not sure, having not yet received a complete answer to the
factual questions I raised. (Adam gave recently a partial answer, but
I'm still not clear on the facts to which he was alluding.)
> 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?
The question is not whether there is such a dependency declared; the
question is whether the software is useful without the use of non-free
At first blush, it looks as if the only purpose of the software is to
run NDIS drivers. So the question is: are all NDIS drivers non-free
software? (Actually, the question is slightly more complex, so please
see the previous message in which I gave a more full version of that