Re: Question about linux-wlan-ng-firmware in main
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Because the package (as I understood it, I don't actually know the package)
> doesn't actually function at all for some people. That's not because they
> aren't interested in it, it's because they need non-free stuff to make it
> work.
Indeed and our job is to help our users who are in this situation. They
want to use their hardware, we have to tell them how they can get it to
work.
Hiding the script in contrib doesn't help our users.
> > The split is not justified by any technical need and thus your reasoning
> > is purely ideological.
>
> Of course it is! There is never a technical reason to put anything in contrib
> or non-free. That's all ideological. You make it sound like ideological
> arguments are not "real", and are less important than technical ones. I
> strongly disagree with that. Debian is an organisation which provides
> software which is both technically and ideologically very good. Both of these
> properties should be protected. Putting things in main which really belong in
> contrib "because there's no technical argument for putting them in contrib" is
> damaging the image of Debian IMO. It makes people think we only care about
> technical matters. If that was the case, contrib wouldn't exist at all.
Well contrib serves an ideological purpose that I share: not cluttering the
package database of people who are not interested in installing non-free
software (because they will have to install something non-free to make use
of contrib).
However extracting a script from a package in main in a new contrib
package doesn't make any sense. You're not thinking what's best for the
user and for Debian, you're only applying a narrow-minded interpretation
of the definition of contrib.
> I wasn't suggesting a new source package. I assumed (and this has been
> confirmed in this thread) that it is possible to create a contrib binary
> package from a source package in main.
Where has this been confirmed? I was convinced of the contrary since
main, contrib and non-free are top directories in the pool and I expected
them to be self containing (sources+binaries).
> > So the decision is entirely up to the maintainer.
>
> Of course it is. And if the maintainer comes here to ask what to do, we're
> going to give advice.
Contradictory advice... so it's better (when possible) to come to a
consensus.
> > Not at all. We all know what is DFSG and what is not in this case.
>
> It is totally clear that for some people this package depends on (as in:
> doesn't do anything useful without) non-free things. IMO that makes it
> contrib, but others don't seem to agree. In case of such (theoretically
> based) disagreements I think of debian-legal. That thought can be completely
> misplaced of course. :-)
There's no notion of "contrib for some" and "main for others". So the
package is in main and should provide the helper script to make it useful
for the largest number of users.
In any case -legal is not the moral authority of Debian and since the
problem is not license related, -legal is not a list to consult. -devel
would be more appropriate but we would probably have the same discussion
as here so a general resolution would be the only way to decide. :-)
Actually a new official definition of contrib might be welcome since we're
having discussion about it very regularly (remember ndisplayer?).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: