Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am 2006-03-01 23:48:56, schrieb Peter Samuelson:
>
>> What possible use would it be to integrate ndiswrapper into
>> debian-installer? Wouldn't the user _still_ have to provide a Windows
>> driver in some format usable by ndiswrapper? Wouldn't that
Hello Wouter,
Am 2006-02-28 14:36:52, schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
> I'm a GNU/Linux consultant. It is my job to help people with installing,
> configuring, and generally using GNU/Linux. I prefer to use non-free
> software as little as possible, and most of my own systems currently
> have no non-fre
Hello Colin,
Am 2006-03-02 08:32:46, schrieb Colin Watson:
> (I have no particular position on ndiswrapper in main per se, and I
> haven't read all of this enormous thread.)
>
> It's common for e.g. network card manufacturers to provide their images
> on a floppy disk. If ndiswrapper were integr
Am 2006-03-01 23:48:56, schrieb Peter Samuelson:
> What possible use would it be to integrate ndiswrapper into
> debian-installer? Wouldn't the user _still_ have to provide a Windows
> driver in some format usable by ndiswrapper? Wouldn't that still have
> to come from some external source, like
Hello Brian,
Only a short comment: Very well sayed.
I second your opinion 100%.
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
2006/2/28, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 whet
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:27:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:32:46AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > It's common for e.g. network card manufacturers to provide their images
> > on a floppy disk. If ndiswrapper were integrated into d-i, then it would
> > be possible to
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:32:46AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> It's common for e.g. network card manufacturers to provide their images
> on a floppy disk. If ndiswrapper were integrated into d-i, then it would
> be possible to let the user insert the floppy disk provided by the
> manufacturer and
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:48:56PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Brian May]
> > Even if nobody does this, it is still possible to integrate
> > ndiswrapper with free software (such as debian-installer)[1]. The
> > same thing cannot be said (IMHO) for an installer package.
>
> Eh? Why not? Why
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:48:56PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Brian May]
> > I think these should belong in a separate category then ndiswrapper,
> > because, unlike ndiswrapper, they are not even "complete" packages
> > without non-free software, and this will never change for the
> > lif
[Brian May]
> I think these should belong in a separate category then ndiswrapper,
> because, unlike ndiswrapper, they are not even "complete" packages
> without non-free software, and this will never change for the
> lifetime of the installer package.
Never underestimate the Debian universe's co
> "Eduard" == Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eduard> And I have never understood why the apt-setup questions
Eduard> for contrib and non-free have been put into the same
Eduard> dialog. The only possible reason is that the users that
Eduard> have deliberately decided
Hello,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Please, can we answer the question? If it's not useful then say,
> "Yes, it's not useful, but that's not relevant." If it's useful say,
> "It's useful, which should settle the case."
>
> Instead, I hear, "Nyaa nyaa nyaa, I'm not goiny to say whether it's
> us
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:06:51AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> However, some people like to define "Debian" just as "main" and use the
> main section as the single acceptable set of free software. Which
> is, of course, wrong, because requirements for contrib are defined by
> DFSG, exactly as for
#include
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Mon, Feb 27 2006, 12:53:12PM]:
> I certainly do not think that the installer should be limited to
> software in main (and perhaps not even software in main+contrib,
> provided it still works correctly without non-free things around).
>
> Is that the root issue? A
Scripsit Tom Rauchenwald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 req
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at the first packages alphabetically in (main/)admin, one
> could ask the same question of a great many packages. The aboot*
> packages assume you have DEC/HP's SRM firmware on your machine.
> acorn-fdisk assumes that you have the Acorn RISC OS.
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Look, if the position is that ndiswrapper is, at present, only useful
> with non-free software, but it should, even so, be in Debian main, I'm
> prepared to entertain that possibility. But I can't even figure out
> what you *are* saying, because everytime I ask, peop
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are a few ways to interpret the word "wrapper". Ndiswrapper could
> certainly be seen as a "wrapper" of sorts, but not in the way that
> policy means. A "wrapper", as used in policy, is a script or small
> executable that will set up the environm
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's been answered a zillion times already, you just didn't accept the
> answer as valid. That's okay, but re-asking it again and again isn't
> going to give you a different answer.
My question was not answered. Is ndiswrapper useful on a
free-softwa
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:50:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Or, perhaps it's not true that there are no free drivers for it. The
>> claim was also made that there was a single free driver out there for
>> use with ndiswrapper, but others c
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>>
>> The reason this interests me is that this seems to be the key
>> question; it seems to me that if something is *now* not useful for
>> free-software-only systems, it might be better placed in c
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:36:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:38:53PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> > One point that nobody raised so far: _reliable_ working on ndiswrapper
> > depends on the 16k-stack patch that is not available in Debian AFAIK.
> > Without that patch,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:38:53PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> One point that nobody raised so far: _reliable_ working on ndiswrapper
> depends on the 16k-stack patch that is not available in Debian AFAIK.
> Without that patch, drivers requiring ndiswrapper (being free or not)
> only work by pure
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 03:25:37PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:36:52PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > The CIPE driver doesn't actually need hardware, since it is an
> > encryption layer. As such, I can use it as a test-case for ndiswrapper,
> > to find out how the
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:36:52PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The CIPE driver doesn't actually need hardware, since it is an
> encryption layer. As such, I can use it as a test-case for ndiswrapper,
> to find out how the latter works and to actually be able to test whether
> I set it up corre
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:21:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> In any case, the real point here is the following statement from
> >> 2.2.2, which says that contrib is for "wrapper packages or other sorts
> >> of free accessories for non-free
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:04:59AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Taking it out of main moves us in the wrong direction if our goal is to
> give our users a *usable* operating system, as opposed to some kind of
> 'proof of concept' OS that some people here seem to want to create, but
> that the majo
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:45:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If there are no uses of it (actual *uses*, where it is *useful*) with
> free programs, then it sure seems like a wrapper for non-free
> programs.
You want a useful use case of the NDIS CIPE driver? Allright, I'll give
you one.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:23:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:48:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> The question is not whether there is such a dependency declared; the
> >> question is whether the software
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:50:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Or, perhaps it's not true that there are no free drivers for it. The
> claim was also made that there was a single free driver out there for
> use with ndiswrapper, but others claimed that the hardware in question
> is already
This one time, at band camp, Hamish Moffatt said:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:31:17AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Hamish Moffatt said:
> > > flashplugin-nonfree itself contains scripts which I presume meet the
> > > DFSG. Do you think we should put it in main?
> >
[Hamish Moffatt]
> > flashplugin-nonfree itself contains scripts which I presume meet
> > the DFSG. Do you think we should put it in main?
[Stephen Gran]
> I assume this is a troll
Your refusal to answer his question is itself an answer.
> > > ndiswrapper is a piece of free software. It does
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:31:17AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Hamish Moffatt said:
> > flashplugin-nonfree itself contains scripts which I presume meet the
> > DFSG. Do you think we should put it in main?
>
> I assume this is a troll, and you have not bothered to rea
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>
> The reason this interests me is that this seems to be the key
> question; it seems to me that if something is *now* not useful for
> free-software-only systems, it might be better placed in contrib (and
> the installer fixed, and perhaps n
This one time, at band camp, Hamish Moffatt said:
> flashplugin-nonfree itself contains scripts which I presume meet the
> DFSG. Do you think we should put it in main?
I assume this is a troll, and you have not bothered to read any of the
other messages in this tediously long thread.
> > ndiswr
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:16:38PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> > I think this is clearly incorrect. The DFSG and the SC do not say
> > anything about the requirements for main that I can see.
>
> This is a clear misunderstanding, AFAICT.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:33:04 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> On Feb 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If it were put in contrib (by accident, say), how would this cause a
>>> problem, assuming that the installer
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:45:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> But I don't know; everyone seems to be dancing around the actual
>> question: are there any free drivers for which ndiswrapper is useful?
>> CIPE has been mentioned, but it has also b
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.
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> In any case, the real point here is the following statement from
> >> 2.2.2, which says that contrib is for "wrapper packages or other sorts
> >> of free accessories for non-free programs."
> >
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:45:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> But I don't know; everyone seems to be dancing around the actual
> question: are there any free drivers for which ndiswrapper is useful?
> CIPE has been mentioned, but it has also been said that ndiswrapper
> was not useful in t
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:03:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The definition of "contrib" is that it is for a package which is a
> wrapper for non-free-software.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In any case, the real point here is the following statement from
>> 2.2.2, which says that contrib is for "wrapper packages or other sorts
>> of free accessories for non-free programs."
>
> Since ndiswrapper's main purpose is to create a kernel API to al
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Additionally, the use of the phrase "useful in a system with only free
> > software on it" is not something I can find in either 2.2.1 or 2.2.2
> > (where the difference between main and contrib
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:25:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> So I'm still at a loss; the only use of ndiswrapper, on a
>> free-software-only system, seems to be CIPE. Is that correct, or is
>> there some other?
>
> There are plenty of others t
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:25:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So I'm still at a loss; the only use of ndiswrapper, on a
> free-software-only system, seems to be CIPE. Is that correct, or is
> there some other?
There are plenty of others to be dreamed up. AFAIK, nobody is compiling
evide
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Additionally, the use of the phrase "useful in a system with only free
> software on it" is not something I can find in either 2.2.1 or 2.2.2
> (where the difference between main and contrib is spelled out) or
> anywhere in our foundation documents. Can
This one time, at band camp, Adam McKenna said:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I guess I think the right test is: "Is this package useful in a
> > system with only free software on it?" Useful is a pragmatic
> > question; if every proposed use has a bett
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I guess I think the right test is: "Is this package useful in a system
>> with only free software on it?" Useful is a pragmatic question; if
>> every proposed use has a better soluti
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I guess I think the right test is: "Is this package useful in a system
> with only free software on it?" Useful is a pragmatic question; if
> every proposed use has a better solution already ready and
> implemented, then I thin
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:42:51PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> 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 exclu
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:42:51PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> 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
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> The tech-ctte is there to address technical disputes.
>
> This isn't a technical dispute, it's an ideological one. The technical
> details very clearly support keeping ndiswrapper in
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:48:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> 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.
>
> All right, who pushed t
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The tech-ctte is there to address technical disputes.
This isn't a technical dispute, it's an ideological one. The technical
details very clearly support keeping ndiswrapper in main.
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:19:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Let's see, maybe you didn't read the paragraph where I said:
>
> I did.
>
>> Is this CIPE? Or is that some other case?
>
> No, it's not CIPE. I guess you have some more reading to d
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:48:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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.
All right, who pushed the 'thread reset' button?
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSC
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:19:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Let's see, maybe you didn't read the paragraph where I said:
>
> I did.
>
>> Is this CIPE? Or is that some other case?
>
> No, it's not CIPE. I guess you have some more reading to d
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:19:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Let's see, maybe you didn't read the paragraph where I said:
I did.
> Is this CIPE? Or is that some other case?
No, it's not CIPE. I guess you have some more reading to do.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[E
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>
>> I do not see anywhere in the SC or the DFSG reference to the "main"
>> vs. "contrib" distinction. Perhaps I have missed it; can you please
>> point me to it?
>
> I think he addressed this in the first paragraph of that m
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> I do not see anywhere in the SC or the DFSG reference to the "main"
> vs. "contrib" distinction. Perhaps I have missed it; can you please
> point me to it?
I think he addressed this in the first paragraph of that mail:
Stephan Gran writes:
> This is a clear misund
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'
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> >> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> >> It
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 fil
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > ndiswrapper is a piece of free software. It does not need non-free
>> > tools to build, and it will execute as a standalone app without any
>> > d
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ndiswrapper is a piece of free software. It does not need non-free
> > tools to build, and it will execute as a standalone app without any
> > drivers. The fact that most people use it to enab
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Policy does specify that packages belong in the correct sections,
> actually.
Where is that? I did not see anything like that in section 2.4 when I
looked before, and I do not see anything like it in 5.6.5.
> > The suggestion that wrongly putting a package in contr
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >> It seems to me that there is no reason ndiswrapper can't be available
>>
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ndiswrapper is a piece of free software. It does not need non-free tools
> to build, and it will execute as a standalone app without any drivers.
> The fact that most people use it to enable non-free drivers to work is
> largely irrelevant - most people
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> It seems to me that there is no reason ndiswrapper can't be available
> >> to the installer whether it's in main or cont
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What is the subset of our users which would find ndiswrapper useful,
>> without the use of free software? I have heard some say that there
>> are no free drivers around for ndiswrapper to wrap. If that's true,
>> then wouldn't that make the subset in q
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Under the default configuration the last time I installed Debian, the
> contrib section is not used; arguing that some future technical change
> might change that behavior leaves the issue open until that change is
> actually made.
As I have said, we
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:30:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Help me out then. You seemed to suggest that not putting ndiswrapper
> >> in main would be to "ignore rules that are ve
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:50:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The question is not what problems it would cause. The problems are side
> > effects. It should stay in main because it is free software that is able to
> > be used by at least so
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It has been argued in this thread that if ndiswrapper were put in
> > main, it would mean that contrib has no point at all. One could
> > equally well argue that if ndiswrapper were put in contrib, main would
> > have
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question is not what problems it would cause. The problems are side
> effects. It should stay in main because it is free software that is able to
> be used by at least some subset of our users, without any non-free software.
Ok, this seems to be a
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:14:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So I said "why not put it in contrib" and you said "because then it
> can't be used by the installer". Now you are saying that even if this
> wasn't a problem, it still shouldn't be in contrib.
Correct.
> Why? I'm flabbergas
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It has been argued in this thread that if ndiswrapper were put in
> main, it would mean that contrib has no point at all. One could
> equally well argue that if ndiswrapper were put in contrib, main would
> have no point at all.
I'm afraid that's not a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If it were put in contrib (by accident, say), how would this cause a
>> problem, assuming that the installer problem was fixed? What specific
>> problems are you concerned about?
>
> People w
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> So I said "why not put it in contrib" and you said "because then it
> can't be used by the installer". Now you are saying that even if this
> wasn't a problem, it still shouldn't be in contrib.
>
> Why? I'm flabbergasted that it matters at all. What does it matter
On Feb 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it were put in contrib (by accident, say), how would this cause a
> problem, assuming that the installer problem was fixed? What specific
> problems are you concerned about?
People wrongly arguing to move packages from main to contrib
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:49:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Ok, then we could put selected packages from contrib on the first CD,
>> provided they are DFSG-free, without causing any problems. Since
>> ndiswrapper certainly is DFSG-free, why n
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:49:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ok, then we could put selected packages from contrib on the first CD,
> provided they are DFSG-free, without causing any problems. Since
> ndiswrapper certainly is DFSG-free, why not do this?
Because ndiswrapper belongs in mai
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:41:29PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Feb 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Better we spend our time actually supporting the hardware with free
>> > software.
>> There is almost none. At most you ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Better we spend our time actually supporting the hardware with free
>> software.
> There is almost none. At most you can choose if you want to get your
> proprietary firmware on board or not.
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> It seems to me that there is no reason ndiswrapper can't be available
>> to the installer whether it's in main or contrib.
>
> AFAIK, it would need to be on the first CD.
Ok, then
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> It seems to me that there is no reason ndiswrapper can't be available
> to the installer whether it's in main or contrib.
AFAIK, it would need to be on the first CD.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROT
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:41:29PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Better we spend our time actually supporting the hardware with free
> > software.
> There is almost none. At most you can choose if you want to get your
> proprietary fi
On Feb 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Better we spend our time actually supporting the hardware with free
> software.
There is almost none. At most you can choose if you want to get your
proprietary firmware on board or not.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digi
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I said earlier, it prevents us from integrating ndiswrapper-supported
> devices into the installer so that users can enable their wireless devices
> during install.
I'm afraid I don't see how this works out.
Why can't you integrate such things into
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:33:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Taking it out of main moves us in the wrong direction if our goal is to
> > give our users a *usable* operating system, as opposed to some kind of
> > 'proof of concept' OS that so
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What dou you think about the idea, that because non-free drivers and
> firmwares are droped from "main" we write wrapers and loaders which
> GET the drivrs and firmwares from the manufacturer provided DriverCD's.
This is a very suboptimal solution.
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Taking it out of main moves us in the wrong direction if our goal is to
> give our users a *usable* operating system, as opposed to some kind of
> 'proof of concept' OS that some people here seem to want to create, but
> that the majority of our users wil
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If someone use only "main" she/he will never install ndiswraper
> and will not code a free version. Let ndiswraper stay in "main"
> will animate developers to code stuff.
My understanding is that it is currently in main, right?
How many people hav
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:33:51PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> I simply can not understand why you all are making such a big fuss about
> ndiswrapper being in contrib or in main.
Taking it out of main moves us in the wrong direction if our goal is to
give our users a *usable* operating system, as
* Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-27 14:21]:
> ndiswraper is to allow users to write drivers, which they may or may
> not have written themselves and which may or may not be free software.
Wrong, its purpose ist to let them run these drivers.
yours Martin
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 05:01:25PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> If I have a hardware which comes with a CD/DVD/Floppy with the firmware
> and there is a free firmware loader but it must stay in contrib it will
> not realy productiv. It is a big disavantage.
Why? I've been using Debian for qu
Am 2006-02-20 23:38:53, schrieb Adam McKenna:
> Practically, it's to avoid shipping things on our CDs that depend on stuff
> that's not on our CDs. In this case, even in the absence of free NDIS
Right, I do not like the Idea, to ship a coupe of CD's
with Firmware and drivers in Debian.
Insteed
Am 2006-02-21 15:36:16, schrieb Anthony Towns:
> That's a mistaken view; the purpose of contrib is to give us a place
> to ship free software that we can't ship in Debian proper (ie, main)
> because it would violate "We will never make the system require the use
> of a non-free component" or, hist
1 - 100 of 260 matches
Mail list logo
