Here's my current feelings on the ndiswrapper issue:
(1) ndiswrapper should be made available by us.
(2) the question is: should it be in main or config?
(3) ndiswrapper sometimes needs to be recompiled to be useful
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2006/04/msg00278.html
(4) the primary reas
On 4/5/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006, Raul Miller stated:
> > Has someone suggested that we should not build or distribute
> > ndiswrapper?
>
> In Debian? Yes, I think that is exactly what we are talking
> about.
With qualifications, I guess I can agree t
On 5 Apr 2006, Raul Miller stated:
> On 4/5/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And for what benefit? Just like the FSF started by distributing and
>> build software on non-free systems, putting out software that may
>> initially be more heavily used with non-free input/output is st
On 4/5/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And for what benefit? Just like the FSF started by
> distributing and build software on non-free systems, putting out
> software that may initially be more heavily used with non-free
> input/output is still desirable, since it is a
On 3 Apr 2006, Ian Jackson said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
>> Well, yes. Consider the case that I write up a compiler for a
>> new language in C++ or ruby. Can I put this compiler in main? Even
>> if there is no public
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> Well, yes. Consider the case that I write up a compiler for a
> new language in C++ or ruby. Can I put this compiler in main? Even
> if there is no public repository of code in this new language?
The
On 3/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does the fact we are boith ignorant mean that the authors and
> users of ndiswrapper be penalized?
Yes!
...ok, I don't mean exactly that, but I don't reject it either.
Fundamentally, the only thing that keeps me from releasing a
On 29 Mar 2006, Raul Miller said:
> On 3/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But what what distinguishes ndiswrapper from anything else in
>>> contrib?
>>
>> Like gcc, it is ready for tyhe user to provide input for it to
>> process. Like gcc, it needs input to produce output (wr
On 3/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But what what distinguishes ndiswrapper from anything else in
> > contrib?
>
> Like gcc, it is ready for tyhe user to provide input for it to
> process. Like gcc, it needs input to produce output (wrapped loadable
> kernel module
On 29 Mar 2006, Raul Miller spake thusly:
> On 3/28/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2006, Raul Miller spake thusly:
>>> I think the difference has to do with intent, and expected use
>>> patterns
>>> -- not just at the command line, but in overall terms.
>>>
>>> And a
On 3/28/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006, Raul Miller spake thusly:
> > I think the difference has to do with intent, and expected use
> > patterns
> > -- not just at the command line, but in overall terms.
> >
> > And a related question is: what free software effort
On 28 Mar 2006, Raul Miller spake thusly:
> I think the difference has to do with intent, and expected use
> patterns
> -- not just at the command line, but in overall terms.
>
> And a related question is: what free software effort would be harmed
> by putting ndiswrapper in config?
Err,
On 3/27/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller told this:
> > The ambiguity is in the resolution's interpretation of the quoted
> > policy:
> >
> > ... must not require a package outside of _main_ for
> > compilation or execution ...
> >
> > Does no-operatio
On 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller told this:
> The ambiguity is in the resolution's interpretation of the quoted
> policy:
>
> ... must not require a package outside of _main_ for
> compilation or execution ...
>
> Does no-operation or substandard operation satisfy requirements for
> execution?
On 3/25/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:28:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >> On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Why does contrib exist ?
> >> [essay elided.]
> >
> > So is there an alternat
On 22 Mar 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:28:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Why does contrib exist ?
>> [essay elided.]
>
> So is there an alternate proposal to
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/03/msg0003
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 04:22:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/23/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:28:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Why does contrib exist ?
> > > [essay elided.]
> > So is there an alterna
On 3/23/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:28:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why does contrib exist ?
> > [essay elided.]
>
> So is there an alternate proposal to
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/03/msg0
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:28:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why does contrib exist ?
> [essay elided.]
So is there an alternate proposal to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/03/msg00037.html
so we can have a vote and make a deci
On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why does contrib exist ?
[essay elided.]
I've been trying to think about this from other points of view, with
the idea of suggesting policy changes that would allow ndiswrapper
to remain in main.
I haven't found any such reasoning which I'm hap
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/9/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Technical arguments why ndiswrapper should be in main:
> >
> > - availability to users with the default sources.list
> > - availability from within the installer
> > - availability from the unmodified
On 3/9/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Technical arguments why ndiswrapper should be in main:
>
> - availability to users with the default sources.list
> - availability from within the installer
> - availability from the unmodified Debian CD images
>
> Technical arguments why ndiswr
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:35:23AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:39:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main")
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:36:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I would like to draft a version of Anthony's answer that makes it a
> recommendation rather than a mandatory decision. In fact, we probably
> need four versions:
> * We think it's our decision and we decide (insisting iff 3:1)
>t
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:49:58AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > WHEREAS
> I'd like to expand somewhat on my `no' vote. Many of the questions
> here were addressed by my earlier messages and I w
On 3/8/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In our opinion the relevant principle is that:
> > >
> > > (i) I
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060308 18:32]:
> You have to say something more subtle if you want to leave wine in
> main. It seems that our current policy depends on whether the
> non-packaged software is not packaged because of its legal or
> political status, or for some technical reason (e
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In our opinion the relevant principle is that:
> >
> > (i) If the user or administrator who is in charge of the Debian
> >installation
On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have overhauled and extended my old draft. See below, and please
> comment.
I think you've presented the the issues clearly. However there is
one point that I think warrants more attention:
> In our opinion the relevant principle is that:
>
I have overhauled and extended my old draft. See below, and please
comment. I'm not formally proposing this just yet. We should vote on
the alternatives together.
The draft below, broadly speaking:
* is advisory
* says `contrib'
Note that I'm going to be away from my email from Saturday the
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:39:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > > [draft resolution]
> > I'm afraid I think that t
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:39:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > [draft resolution]
> I'm afraid I think that that's quite out of order.
> Constitution s6.3(3):
> 3. Public discussion and dec
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here is a version of Anthony's `put it in main' resolution made into a
> > suggestion rather than an instruction. Below you'll fi
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> WHEREAS
I'd like to expand somewhat on my `no' vote. Many of the questions
here were addressed by my earlier messages and I will try to avoid
repeating myself.
> 5. The technical policy in this matter s
On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is a version of Anthony's `put it in main' resolution made into a
> suggestion rather than an instruction. Below you'll find a diff for
> your comfort and convenience.
I vote against this proposal for the same reasons I voted against
the or
On 3/6/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 3. The purpose of the ndiswrapper package is to provide an ABI layer
> on top of the Linux kernel that is compatible with the interface for
> Windows NDIS drivers, and that in order to provide this compatability
> layer, no non-free software is requir
Here is a version of Anthony's `put it in main' resolution made into a
suggestion rather than an instruction. Below you'll find a diff for
your comfort and convenience.
WHEREAS
1. The committee has been asked by Robert Millan, the submitter of
Bug#353278 and a former developer, to overrule
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> Given that the constitution does specify the use of the standard resolution
> procedure, I think the right answer here is to have a single ballot with
> both proposals on it, so that we have an opportunity to ra
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> Either way, I propose the following, call for a vote on it, and vote
> in favour:
>
> WHEREAS
...
> 6. It is appropriate for the committee to consider this request; and
...
> 8. As such the ndiswrapper p
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> [draft resolution]
I'm afraid I think that that's quite out of order.
Constitution s6.3(3):
3. Public discussion and decision-making.
Discussion, draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by
m
I'd like to try to think about this from another point of view. I'm
going to go back and say some things that we're all probably aware of
and then develop from there:
Why does contrib exist ?
1. Dependency-completeness for main:
There is one clear technical reason why
On 3/7/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that there's been no formal call for votes on either Raul's proposal
> or on this one, then, I think we should take another day for any further
> input (additional resolutions, editorial corrections, etc), then put these
> on a ballot and
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:41:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Okay, so here's the alternate proposal. I understand Raul at least
> disagrees with paragraph (3) (and obviously the conclusions based on
> that), but I'm not sure we have any good way of noting that difference
> of opinion -- perhaps
On 6 Mar 2006, Anthony Towns said:
> Either way, I propose the following, call for a vote on it, and vote
> in favour:
>
> WHEREAS
>
> 1. The committee has been asked by Robert Millan, the submitter of
> Bug#353278 and a former developer, to overrule the decision by the
> maintainer of the ndiswr
Okay, so here's the alternate proposal. I understand Raul at least
disagrees with paragraph (3) (and obviously the conclusions based on
that), but I'm not sure we have any good way of noting that difference
of opinion -- perhaps we should include the previous draft in the vote?
Courts and parliamen
On 28 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:09:35PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> WHEREAS
>> 1. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-free drivers to be used.
>> THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT
>> 6. ndiswrapper belongs in contrib.
>> AND THE COMMITTEE THEREFORE REQUESTS AS FOLL
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> We're getting into "if a tree fell in a forest..." territory here though.
In that context the question we're trying to resolve is analogous to:
is this a forest, or a parking lot?
Getting back to my own views on this:
I don't think a decision to put ndiswrapper
On 3/3/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For example, if there's free software being developed against
> > WINE (as a UI, or whatever) then that's sufficient reason right
> > there, to leave it in main.
>
> Counting the toy utilities that are bundled with wine, or only other free
>
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:26:56AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:27:41PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/2/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > With that in mind, policy on contrib says that contrib is for
> > > "wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free
> > > programs."
> > > http://www.debian.o
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 09:21:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:42:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > But it doesn't -- ndiswrapper will sit there quite beningly if the
> > > > non-free
> > >
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:42:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > But it doesn't -- ndiswrapper will sit there quite beningly if the
> > > non-free
> > > driver isn't present. It'll do everything it's supposed to -- link with
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:42:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:15:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Ok, we should probably find a different word to describe this
> > > relationship.
> > > Perhaps it could be phrased that ndiswrapper
On 3/2/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:35:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But I think this case -- < > install non-free software, in order to make the package work the way that
> > people typically think of as using it>>... I think this case is on the w
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:15:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok, we should probably find a different word to describe this
> > relationship.
> >
> > Perhaps it could be phrased that ndiswrapper has a need for the presence
> > of some software which is not avai
On 3/2/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With that in mind, policy on contrib says that contrib is for
> > "wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free programs."
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-contrib
>
> > And I think ndiswrapper
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [060228 09:44]:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:09:35PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > WHEREAS
> > 1. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-free drivers to be used.
> > THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT
> > 6. ndiswrapper belongs in contrib.
> > AND THE COMMITTEE THE
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:35:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> But I think this case -- < install non-free software, in order to make the package work the way that
> people typically think of as using it>>... I think this case is on the wrong
> side of that line.
But by its nature ndiswrapper requ
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:15:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Ok, we should probably find a different word to describe this
> relationship.
>
> Perhaps it could be phrased that ndiswrapper has a need for the presence
> of some software which is not available in debian main.
But it doesn't -- ndi
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:15:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/1/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The lack of declared dependencies in ndiswrapper isn't a result of trying
> > to do an end-run around policy, it's a result of the fact that ndiswrapper
> > does not *have* a depe
On 3/1/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The lack of declared dependencies in ndiswrapper isn't a result of trying
> to do an end-run around policy, it's a result of the fact that ndiswrapper
> does not *have* a dependency on windows drivers in the sense that can
> reasonably be repre
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:35:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > After the discussions so far, I'm inclined towards the following two views
> > of our policy on this:
> > * first, that dependencies are one way -- programs depend on
> > libraries, but libraries don't depend on the programs
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:22:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/1/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Let's grant that any "moving to contrib" will only happing in
> > > unstable/testing
> > > (and future stable) releases of debian.
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Now, you use that input how you want and you make up your own opinion.
>
> Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, here's how I'm understanding what you
> wrote: You feel that the contents of the "contrib" section mentioned in the
> social contract should be mechan
On 3/1/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Let's grant that any "moving to contrib" will only happing in
> > unstable/testing
> > (and future stable) releases of debian.
> >
> > Do you see a problem with moving these to contrib? After all,
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> Let's grant that any "moving to contrib" will only happing in unstable/testing
> (and future stable) releases of debian.
>
> Do you see a problem with moving these to contrib? After all, everything
Honestly I don't care enough about either those libs or
On 3/1/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > The real question was "What is the difference for a package if it enables
> > > the user to make use of his own software or his own hardware (whether free
> > > or non-fee) ?"
> >
> > I don't think
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The real question was "What is the difference for a package if it enables
> > the user to make use of his own software or his own hardware (whether free
> > or non-fee) ?"
>
> I don't think that's the real question in the context of ndiswrapper:
But we
On 3/1/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you responded to my question out of its context... which was trimmed
> down due to the 2 subsequent answers. :-/
Ok. And I think a part of the problem has been inexact expression,
where assumptions are important in understanding what a
pe
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/28/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On 2/28/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > What's so different between my own non-free program and my own non-free
> > > > card whic
On 2/28/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/28/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What's so different between my own non-free program and my own non-free
> > > card which requires a non-free driver to work with ?
> >
>
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/28/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's so different between my own non-free program and my own non-free
> > card which requires a non-free driver to work with ?
>
> We can't distribute any hardware in main.
We are speaking of so
On 2/28/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's so different between my own non-free program and my own non-free
> card which requires a non-free driver to work with ?
We can't distribute any hardware in main.
--
Raul
On 2/28/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Okay, so I'll vote against both these.
Understood.
But I'd appreciate it if you could refine your arguments some more:
> After the discussions so far, I'm inclined towards the following two views
> of our policy on this:
>
> * first, that dependencies are
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > What's so different between my own non-free program and my own non-free
> > card which requires a non-free driver to work with ?
>
> You didn't ma
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> What's so different between my own non-free program and my own non-free
> card which requires a non-free driver to work with ?
You didn't make the card.
(Unless you want to argue that ndiswrapper is for h
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:14:22AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > After the discussions so far, I'm inclined towards the following two views
> > of our policy on this:
> > * first, that depende
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What, then, is the intended meaning when the policy manual talks about
> `wrappers' for non-free programs ? (Feel free to say that the wording
> is suboptimal and shouldn't be read so closely.)
Wrapper like "installation wrappers": free code that download
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> After the discussions so far, I'm inclined towards the following two views
> of our policy on this:
>
> * first, that dependencies are one way -- programs depend on
> libraries, but librarie
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:09:35PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> WHEREAS
> 1. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-free drivers to be used.
> THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT
> 6. ndiswrapper belongs in contrib.
> AND THE COMMITTEE THEREFORE REQUESTS AS FOLLOWS
> 9. ftpmasters and the ndiswrapper mainta
On 2/27/06, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1 "open source" windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)
> Well, I couldn't find any trace of "1" ever happening. If it ever
> happened, then it's ok. But as far as
On 2/27/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like your improvement to the first paragraph, so if I may I would
> like to accept that as a change to my original proposal (which has
> been voted down anyway).
No problem -- that fits with my intention.
> I would be happy to place your vers
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 a
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> This is my rephrasing of Ian's proposal. Changes:
>
> (*) Emphasize the debian dependency issue.
> (*) Emphasize that this is a recommendation, not a command.
>
> Basically, I'm repeating what Ia
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 10:22:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Ok... silence.
> This might mean:
> (1) everyone is busy
> (2) people feel they need to think about this further
> (3) the modified version of Ian's proposal that I posted doesn't
> properly address some ndiswrapper issue
> (4) that p
Ok... silence.
This might mean:
(1) everyone is busy
(2) people feel they need to think about this further
(3) the modified version of Ian's proposal that I posted doesn't
properly address some ndiswrapper issue
(4) that proposal might cause some problem for other packages
(5) something else
If
This is my rephrasing of Ian's proposal. Changes:
(*) Emphasize the debian dependency issue.
(*) Emphasize that this is a recommendation, not a command.
Basically, I'm repeating what Ian has already said.
I'm proposing this as a votable option.
Thanks,
--
Raul
WHEREAS
1. ndiswrapper's pu
On 2/23/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Up until this evening I was of the opinion that this was the case; then
> Anthony presented an analogous scenario on IRC that I found persuasive.
> Supposing that lesstif had not been written yet today, and there were no
> free packages in Deb
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:09:35PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I miswrote `achieved' as `required'. So I withdraw my previous motion
> and propose the following instead, and call for a vote.
Since you've called for a vote, I vote "no" on this resolution as written.
I do agree that we should rende
On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we think they're not technical issues then we should issue an
> opinion anyway, IMO. In practice in past when we've punted things
> away saying `this is not a technical issue' no-one else has stepped up
> to provide an opinion. So we could s
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I miswrote `achieved' as `required'. So I withdraw my previous motion
> > and propose the following instead, and call for a vote.
> &g
Raul Miller writes ("Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Was the open source windows driver ever available as a Debian
> > package ? It seems clear to me that anything which requires you to
> > ins
On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes ("Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > It looks to me as if the sequence of events was:
> >
> > 1 "open source" windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)
> >
Raul Miller writes ("Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> It looks to me as if the sequence of events was:
>
> 1 "open source" windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)
> 2 someone ports windows driver to linux
> 3 linux driver available
>
>
On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I miswrote `achieved' as `required'. So I withdraw my previous motion
> and propose the following instead, and call for a vote.
>
> WHEREAS
>
> 1. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-free drivers to be used.
>
> 2. While there may be cases whe
On 2/21/06, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a specific counter example, consider
> > http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> > which is a project porting a windows driver to linux. This port
> > appears to
On 21 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek verbalised:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:40:06AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:36:13PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>>> I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved
>>> to contrib.
>> While I would personally rather se
On 21 Feb 2006, Ian Jackson verbalised:
> I hereby propose the following motion and call for a vote.
I vote against the motion outlined below.
manoj
>
> WHEREAS
>
> 1. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-free drivers to be used.
>
> 2. While there may be cases where ndiswrappe
I miswrote `achieved' as `required'. So I withdraw my previous motion
and propose the following instead, and call for a vote.
WHEREAS
1. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-free drivers to be used.
2. While there may be cases where ndiswrapper can be used
with a DFSG-free driver, these are
I hereby propose the following motion and call for a vote.
WHEREAS
1. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-free drivers to be used.
2. While there may be cases where ndiswrapper can be used
with a DFSG-free driver, these are exceptional.
3. The Committee is by and large satisfied with the i
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
