Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
- To: "Henning Makholm" <henning@makholm.net>
- Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
- From: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 13:01:01 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 2fc2c5f10603050401m60aecf24l@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <871wxn6yhr.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net>
- References: <pA1m5B.A.9y.5svAEB@mobilix.private> <87vev0zjkt.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20060227195913.GD5186@flounder.net> <874q2kzfuw.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20060227221951.GC3134@www.lobefin.net> <87fym4wigm.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20060227224412.GE3134@www.lobefin.net> <874q2kwh7w.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20060228062439.577f5e2d.its.sec@gmx.net> <871wxn6yhr.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net>
2006/2/28, Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>:
> Personally I favor using a test somebody invented an earlier time we
> discussed a similar problem: To determine whether A "requires" B for
> the purpose of the social contract, assume hypothetically that B was
> free and packaged, and then ask whether ordinary packaging practice
> would lead to A a declaring a "Depends:" relationship on B in that
> situation. This test would allow us to move the question into the
> technical realm.
Thank you, this has cleared everything up for me. Now I can stop
reading this thread :)
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@gmail.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Reply to: