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

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes:

> Additionally, the use of the phrase "useful in a system with only free
> software on it" is not something I can find in either 2.2.1 or 2.2.2
> (where the difference between main and contrib is spelled out) or
> anywhere in our foundation documents.  Can you point me to where this
> requirement is mentioned in our policy and/or foundation documents?  

It's not in the foundation documents, it's in the definition of
contrib.  Please remember, the Debian Policy Manual is not a
"foundation document".

In any case, the real point here is the following statement from
2.2.2, which says that contrib is for "wrapper packages or other sorts
of free accessories for non-free programs."

So the question is, is ndiswrapper for free programs, or only for
non-free programs?

If there are no uses of it (actual *uses*, where it is *useful*) with
free programs, then it sure seems like a wrapper for non-free

But I don't know; everyone seems to be dancing around the actual
question: are there any free drivers for which ndiswrapper is useful?
CIPE has been mentioned, but it has also been said that ndiswrapper
was not useful in this particular case.

Moreover, the statements in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are *exemplars*, not final
absolute standards.  Remember, Policy is not a foundation document.
It is a *technical* document.  There is no statement in 2.2.1 that
everything which meets the test there belongs in main; it is a list of
requirements, but does not pretend to be exhaustive.  

There are some examples of things which belong in contrib, and at
first blush, ndiswrapper looks like one of those: to use ndiswrapper,
you need a driver to wrap, and there are no such drivers in our
archive.  And, with only one exception (an exception which it has been
said is irrelevant since ndiswrapper is not actually *needed* for
CIPE), ndiswrapper is only good for wrapping non-free programs
(speaking *right now*; if the facts change, it can easily be moved).

But rather than argue about what *might* be so, geez, can *somebody*
PLEASE, just answer the factual question?


Reply to: