Stephen Gran writes: > I said neither that anyone was lying, nor that they were acting in > bad faith. I think that they are working for something they believe > in and that they are going about it poorly. We have a procedure for > changing what the foundation documents say, and it is not by filing > bugs or appealing to the tech ctte.
Although I think ndiswrapper meets the requirements for main, I think this presentation misrepresents what the "other" side claims. Policy section 2.2.1: "In addition, the packages in main: * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution (this, the package must not declare a 'Depends', 'Recommends' or 'Build-Depends' relationship on a non-main package)...." This lists several signs that a package requires another package, but it is not presented as an exhaustive list. If you use a broad definition of "require", it is reasonable to exclude ndiswrapper from main on the grounds that there are no NDIS drivers in main. I think that is a too-broad definition of require, but using it does not require changing foundation documents. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
