On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:48:51 -0800 Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
