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/
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 a
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 integrated
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-free
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 still
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 whether
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
lifetime of
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 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 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 let
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
useful.
My
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 to not use
[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
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.
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 not
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 read any
[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 not
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?
I assume
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
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 is useful
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 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
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 programs.
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
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 latter
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 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,
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 contrib
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 claimed
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
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 environment
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, people
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.
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 require
#include hallo.h
* 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?
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 main.
Am 2006-02-18 13:42:38, schrieb Robert Millan:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:49:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Does the lack of a free driver which can be used with ndiswrapper mean
that it is impossible to use ndiswrapper with such a free driver, should
one eventually be written?
If
Am 2006-02-18 13:58:20, schrieb Jérôme Marant:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is your point that contrib should therefore be empty and has no reason for
existance?
If not, please explain me the difference between ndiswrapper and all the
other
packages that belong to
Am 2006-02-19 11:13:19, schrieb Daniel Stone:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
la, 2006-02-18 kello 10:43 -0500, Michael Poole kirjoitti:
What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it on?
It can be used, for example, to assemble code
Am 2006-02-19 02:11:30, schrieb Peter Samuelson:
No, the point of Java is to allow users to run Java software, which
they may or may not have written themselves, and which may or may not
be free software. Examples of all permutations of the above are really
ndiswraper is to allow users to
Am 2006-02-19 08:40:44, schrieb Michael Poole:
Again, there is no mention of pointless software in Policy -- if
there were, some large fraction of main would be moved because it is
duplicative, trivial or otherwise pointless to have. Likewise, there
is no mention of Windows driver developers
Am 2006-02-19 00:44:29, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main. Non-free is here for a
reason, we just have to use it. Technical solutions to have the driver
in the kernel or in contrib, and
Am 2006-02-19 01:52:05, schrieb Marco d'Itri:
On Feb 19, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main.
Because it's good for Debian and is good for our users.
Sorry Marco, but
Hi Thomas,
Am 2006-02-18 17:18:37, schrieb Thomas Bushnell BSG:
Regardless, we already have a commitment: to remove non-DFSG bits from
the main archive.
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
Am 2006-02-19 08:46:16, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
Please stop these lies. I repeat: technical solutions do exist. For
hardware unnecessary at installation's first stage, it is only a matter
of making non-free available.
ACK!
For hardware necessary for the first
stage, it would be possible
Am 2006-02-19 08:46:42, schrieb Michael Poole:
Exactly what is the technical solution for installing drivers for
firmware-requiring hardware if you only have Debian proper (i.e. main)
available? That is the situation I described, and I really do not see
any technical solution for it, no
Hello Peter,
Am 2006-02-19 01:51:31, schrieb Peter Samuelson:
Good, then we can stop talking about including it in main. We don't
ship hardware, so if firmware is part of the hardware, we don't need to
ship it either. If it's part of the hardware, then it is the hardware
vendor's
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,
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
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
* 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 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] 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 have been
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 will not
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. Such
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 some people
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 the
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: Digital
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 firmware on
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
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 we could
[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.
The
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 can choose if you
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 main.
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 not do
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.
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?
If it
[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 wrongly
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 an
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 flabbergasted
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
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 no point at
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 some subset
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 very clearly
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
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 question
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 contrib.
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 use
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
to the
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 contrib
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 enable
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
drivers. The fact
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 filing
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 seems to me that there
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'll
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
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 mail:
He said
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] [EMAIL
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 do.
Can you
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
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 do.
Ah, a
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
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 the 'thread
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 main.
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 there
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 exclude
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 think the
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 solution already
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 better
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 you
1 - 100 of 260 matches
Mail list logo
