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

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:48:51 -0800
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:

> Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> 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
> software.
> 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
> question.)

I am not a DD, so maybe my opinion is idiotic. But: the thing is free,
it allows people to use non-free drivers, but it is entirerly up to the
user to use those drivers. I don't know, but for me this discussion is
pointless. Does ndiswrapper require non-free packages? no. if the user
decides to use non-free drivers, then it's his choice, not debian's, so
what. and no, I don't care much, because i do not use ndiswrapper, but
this is starting to get silly.

> Thomas
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: