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 repository of code in this new language
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 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 still
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 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 would be
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 related question
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 (wrapped
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-operation or substandard
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, wrong
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 alternate proposal to
On 3/23/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 04:22:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/23/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
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/msg00037.html
so
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 decision?
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 happy
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):
[draft resolution]
I'm afraid I think
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 ndiswrapper
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 that's quite out of order.
Constitution s6.3(3):
3. Public
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)
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) If the user or administrator who is in charge of the Debian
installation
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 we
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 rank the options
in glorious
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
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 find a diff for
your comfort and convenience.
I vote
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 ndiswrapper
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 is a sort
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:42:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:42:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
But it doesn't -- ndiswrapper will sit there quite beningly if the
non-free
driver isn't present. It'll do
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 09:21:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:42:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
But it doesn't -- ndiswrapper will sit there quite
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.
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. :)
I'm afraid you'll have
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
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 that's the real
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:
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
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 mechanically
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 that
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
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 dependency
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 --
* 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 THEREFORE
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 libraries don't depend on the programs that use
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 downloads a
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 dependencies are one way -- programs depend
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 helping hardware
developers
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 which requires a
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
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 Ian has already said.
I'm proposing
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
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 I know, the
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 Debian
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
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 render
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
These events are sequential, and event 3 does
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)
2 someone ports windows driver to linux
3 linux driver available
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
install non-Debian stuff on your machine belongs
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.
WHEREAS
1. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non
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
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
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
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
63 matches
Mail list logo
