Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
reopen 353278 reassign 353278 tech-ctte reopen 353277 reassign 353277 tech-ctte merge 353278 353277 thanks Hi, I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib. My reasons are: - The sole purpose of these packages is allowing the use of non-free Windows drivers. - There are no free Windows drivers for this interface, except a port of a Linux driver to Windows (cipe), which is only used on native Windows platform (since it is pointless to emulate it from Linux, where the original cipe is already available). The maintainer refuses to move it unless you rule a formal decision or a consensus is reached. I think the latter is impossible, and therefore I ask you to consider the issue. Thank you. On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:45:24PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 11:34 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Feb 19, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nevertheless, if you think abiword and openoffice.org should be moved then go for it. Just don't use them as excuse to turn warez wrappers into generic driver interfaces. No excuses are needed, the definition of contrib is enough and ndiswrapper has been uploaded to main using the same criteria which have been used in the past for emulators. Stop rewriting history. Please also stop insulting ndiswrapper users and developers by calling it a warez wrapper. And for fuck's sake, stop filling up my inbox w/ this crap. I'm not doing a thing unless either a) you people come to a consensus on the issue (which you have not in the past threads, and probably never will), or b) a governing body like the ctte tells me that it should be in contrib. Otherwise, it's staying right where it is. Honestly, I could care less whether it's in contrib or main, but it was a decision that was made long ago, and I see no reason to make the change. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reopen 353278 Bug#353278: should be in contrib Bug reopened, originator not changed. reassign 353278 tech-ctte Bug#353278: should be in contrib Bug reassigned from package `ndiswrapper-modules-i386' to `tech-ctte'. reopen 353277 Bug#353277: should be in contrib Bug reopened, originator not changed. reassign 353277 tech-ctte Bug#353277: should be in contrib Bug reassigned from package `ndiswrapper' to `tech-ctte'. merge 353278 353277 Bug#353277: should be in contrib Bug#353278: should be in contrib Merged 353277 353278. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 2/20/06, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib. This proposal is clear enough. My reasons are: - The sole purpose of these packages is allowing the use of non-free Windows drivers. - There are no free Windows drivers for this interface, except a port of a Linux driver to Windows (cipe), which is only used on native Windows platform (since it is pointless to emulate it from Linux, where the original cipe is already available). I'm not sure I agree with this. When I look at the list of drivers that ndiswrapper supports http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/index.php/List I see several that seem to be open source. You've asserted that none of these drivers satisfy the DFSG, but I think we would need more than an assertion on this issue. 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 be possible because the windows driver was made available under a free license. -- Raul
Re: Tech ctte tweaks
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 03:22:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:24:49PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: I agree with the proposal to implement a rotating chair, for the reasons you've given. It seems to contradict 6.1.7 of the constitution as written to have an automatically rotating chair, however. Are we amending the constitution (no way to get that done by the 15th), or is this just an informal agreement for each chair to vacate after a term of two months? That seems easiest; currently the only way to change chairs seems to be by the current chair resigning anyway. (3) Advisory opinions from the chair So I propose we establish that our procedure in addressing issues is for the chair to quickly issue an initial opinion; and to only vote on issues when an official ruling is needed (eg, to overrule a maintainer) or when members of the tech ctte disagree. Is there a fixed period in which tech ctte members should be expected to comment if they disagree? Presumably we can expect any additional comments from other members within a few days or a week; but you'd need to ask for a vote before it should be taken as absolutely definitive, I'd think. So I was reviewing the constitution's rules for this committee, and found some interesting bits that I think are relevant. Per §6.3.1, the voting period for any draft resolution or amendment is one week, with no minimum discussion period, and the quorum is only two. If the chair believes a particular solution is the correct one, he can therefore propose a resolution and immediately call for a vote with effectively the same results as in your proposal here, except that a single vote of support from any other ctte member can make it an official position of the ctte and no votes of support from any other ctte members suggests that the advisory opinion should probably be ignored. :) As such, I'm in favor of having the chair propose such resolutions early and calling for votes, and dispense directly with any ambiguities regarding advisory opinions. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Tech ctte tweaks
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 09:49:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Okay, Steve's meant to start today (in 20 minutes if we go by UTC), so Ian are you happy to step down, and does everyone want to send in their vote for new chair? Mine's: 1. Steve, 2. Bdale, 3. Andy, 4. Raul, 5. Me, 6. Ian, 7. Further discussion So Ian's stepped down, and Steve has four votes, with three people not (yet) voting. Which either means we have a winner already, or will when voting closes. (1) Rotating the tech ctte chair - Feb 14th Ian Jackson Feb 15th - Mar 31st Steve Langasek Apr 1st - May 31st Bdale Garbee Jun 1st - Jul 31st Andreas Barth Aug 1st - Sep 30th Raul Miller Oct 1st - Nov 30th Anthony Towns Dec 1st - Jan 31st Ian Jackson I vote yes... In favour: Steve, Ian, Anthony; no votes against -- so that's enough to pass when voting closes. (2) Requiring an implementation of proposals So I propose we establish a rule that we won't make decisions on issues that aren't ready for an immediate NMU when we make that decision. Also yes... In favour: Steve, Anthony; Against: Ian -- currently that will pass, though won't be particularly binding. (3) Advisory opinions from the chair So I propose we establish that our procedure in addressing issues is for the chair to quickly issue an initial opinion; and to only vote on issues when an official ruling is needed (eg, to overrule a maintainer) or when members of the tech ctte disagree. Also yes... Looks like we'll have an alternate mechanism from the incoming chair, so I'll change my vote to against, which gives us three against, none in favour. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
status of technical committee chair vote
Recapping the status to date; it'd be nice to get this wrapped up so we can move on to issues of substance. Ian has, as I understand it, stepped down as chair per his message at http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00038.html. Since he also did not vote in favor of Anthony's proposed rotation schedule until Feb 17[1], I believe this means that the voting period for a new Committee Chairman under §6.1.7 of the constitution begins effective this same date, i.e., the point at which the post has become vacant. Some committee members sent their votes in early in anticipation, but I believe they should be counted nonetheless. :) Anthony: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00033.html Raul: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00034.html Steve: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00035.html Ian(?): http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00036.html Unfortunately, the constitution does *not* say that ctte chair votes end when the outcome is no longer in doubt; it requires that the vote continue until all the members have voted, or when the voting period has ended. Even worse, the voting period for Committee Chair elections is *not* specified in the constitution: the constitution specifies one voting period for General Resolutions (two weeks), another voting period for drafts and resolutions of the Technical Committee (one week), a third for DPL elections (three weeks), and says nothing at all on the subject of voting periods for Committee Chair. So while we might infer that the voting period is intended to be the same as for other activities of the technical committee, even in this case we are without a chair until the one-week voting period ends on Feb. 24. Are there any objections to the correctness of this summary? Bdale, Manoj, Andi, could you please send in your votes for committee chair so we can close this out? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00036.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
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. ndiswrapper is a program to allow users to load Windows drivers for their hardware and use them on Linux. The drivers are executed on the main CPU; there are no free drivers that ndiswrapper is useful for, apart from a single example driver that is a port of a driver already in the kernel. We currently allow both emulators, that play non-free ROMs, and clients for network protocols for which there is no non-free server into main. ndiswrapper was accepted into main in November 2004. AFAICS, this would come under the overrule a developer (3:1 majority) power. Yes, this is not a request from Andres that we make a decision on his behalf, therefore the Technical Committee would be acting to override the maintainer under 6.1.4 with a 3:1 majority. The maintainer refuses to move it unless you rule a formal decision or a consensus is reached. I think the latter is impossible, and therefore I ask you to consider the issue. While I would personally rather see the contrib demarkation cover this, emulators, and clients for propietary protocols, I'm disinclined to override both the maintainer and the ftpmaster that accepted it, particularly on this single issue rather than as a global policy change for those issues. I expect I'll either abstain or vote against. I suspect I disagree with Anthony on where exactly the line should be drawn, but it does seem to me that the arguments used to justify ndiswrapper's presence in main are rather contrived. Nobody is going to want to run drivers under ndiswrapper in a production environment if there is a suitable free equivalent available for Linux; the only practical applications I see here are using non-free Windows drivers under Linux for otherwise-unsupported hardware, and using ndiswrapper as a tool for preliminary testing of drivers being written for Windows in an environment that doesn't require booting Windows. The former is what I use it for, and what every user I know uses it for, and doesn't justify a claim that ndiswrapper does not depend on non-free software. The latter, IMHO, would be grounds for shipping the software in main, but AFAIK this is purely a hypothetical at this point. Either way, I do agree with Anthony that one-off overrides of maintainers don't seem like the best way for us to be spending our time. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: status of technical committee chair vote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Langasek) writes: Bdale, Manoj, Andi, could you please send in your votes for committee chair so we can close this out? I'm ok with the rotation idea, and with Steve taking the first rotation. Bdale -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFD+rXmZKfAp/LPAagRAgA1AJ9zVn08weRNxPn4c0pWYSNDlZQH/ACfcOD3 HiteQ/DuTenJo0mFlG6+8+M= =ZjoH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
