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

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:48:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> 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
>> software.
> All right, who pushed the 'thread reset' button?

Unlike some, I do not have a perfect memory.  Moreover, I do not
appreciate vague "we already discussed this" references.  I've read
the damn thread; I ask the question because the previous discussion
did not seem to actually *answer* the question.

If the answer is so blindingly obvious, then really, it can simply be
put down.  Or a reference given if that's too much trouble.  What I'm
worried about is a question that I do not think *has* been answered,
and that rather than answer it, we get "we already answered that"
without any answer actually having appeared.

So, while this question has been asked before--indeed--it has not been
answered AFAICT.  I've heard it asserted; you mentione the CIPE case.
Is that the only case?  Is ndiswrapper useful for CIPE?

More to the point, it was said that it should be in main if there was
a subset of users who would benefit from its presence there, even
without the use of any non-free software.  What is this subset of
users, exactly?  Are they users with CIPE hardware?  (But they benefit
more from the direct support of cipe anway.)  Or what?


Reply to: