Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"): > 1+5. As noted in my follow-up comments to Ian's proposal, I think the > rationale is great, but I draw the opposite conclusion from it. :)
I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on that :-). > I also didn't see that you had called for a vote on this one, just noted > that it was "submitted as a votable option", so I was hoping that before > voting we could put together a couple of other ballot options representing > other points of view that could be voted on as a group, since that's the way > that Condorcet works best. Right. It seems that we're not going to just make a quick decision here. But that means we need your opinion written up in resolution form. Some questions that may help: * Do you agree with Raul and my view about the policy manual text in general - ie, paragraphs 3-4, 6(first instance), 7 and 8 of Raul's version and paragraph 10 of mine ? * What other things are like ndiswrapper that you think we all accept should be in main ? We might be able to suggest possible distinctions between ndiswrapper and your examples, or between your examples and (say) a package which Depends: on a non-main package. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]