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 of free accessory for non-free programs." > > Ok. Would you say the same thing about a free library that implements an > API/ABI which is primarily of interest to users of pre-existing non-free > software? If not, why is one an "accessory" and the other not?
That's a good question. The way I'm currently thinking: If there are debian packages that you can use in WINE, or if it has some functionality that makes it useful in and of itself, then it belongs in main. Otherwise it belongs in contrib. 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. I'm willing to hear reasons why this reasoning is wrong, but if we're going to go that route I think we to think those reasons through and come up with some suggested policy that distinguishes between the WINE case and the cases that belong in Contrib. > > Perhaps it could be phrased that ndiswrapper has a need for the presence > > of some software which is not available in debian main. > > If we didn't ship any free software built around the Motif API, would this > mean lesstif had a "need for the presence of some software which is not > available in Debian main"? I've been suggesting that the answers to these questions depend on our best understanding of how our users use the software. If it's built and deployed for people to develop against, that's one thing. If it's not documented and supported for development work, and no one is developing against it, and it's only being used by people who want to install something that's not free, then that's an entirely different situation. -- Raul
