On 3/6/06, Anthony Towns <[email protected]> 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 required; and
This is a purpose, but not the sole purpose. This seems clearly established in the proposal: > 4. The primary use for this compatability layer is to run non-free > Windows drivers for hardware not directly supported by Linux, though > a very limited number of free drivers using the NDIS format also > exist; and > > 5. The technical policy in this matter states that: (debian-policy > 3.6.2.2, section 2.2.1) > > [...] packages in _main_ > * must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or > execution If "execution" means typical execution (as opposed to some kind of failure condition or something else which would not be acceptable for a normal user of the package), then I think it's clear that in the minds of almost everyone who installs ndiswrapper, non-free Windows drivers are required for execution of ndiswrapper. > and: (debian-policy 3.6.2.2, section 2.2.2) > > Examples of packages which would be included in _contrib_ are: > * free packages which require _contrib_, _non-free_ packages or > packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation or > execution, and > * wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free > programs. As the normal use of ndiswrapper requires software which has not been packaged for main, and as ndiswrapper is primarily to make these non free drivers useful, I think it's sufficiently close to the above examples. > THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT > > 6. It is appropriate for the committee to consider this request; and > > 7. The current ndiswrapper package does not require any non-free > software at either compilation time or installation time to fulfill > its designated purpose; and Point 7 seems to require we ignore points 4 and 5, and accept point 3 as describing the normal use of ndiswrapper. > 8. As such the ndiswrapper package complies with current technical > policy as regards to its suitability for main; and > > 9. If the ndiswrapper package come to depend on non-free software at > compilation time or installation time, such as by prompting the user > for a Windows driver CD, at that time the ndiswrapper package would > be required to be moved to contrib. If this a salient point, then 2.2.1 should be changed to read "must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or installation" instead of the current "must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or execution" > IN ADDITION > > 10. The committee endorses the decisions of the maintainer of ndiswrapper > and the ftpmaster team in including the package in the main component > as being in compliance with Debian technical policy; and > > 11. The committee endorses the existing policy on the suitability of packages > for the main and contrib components; and It seems to me that either [1] we should be recommending policy be changed (so that it's clear that execution requirements of nearly all users is not relevant when determining whether a package belongs in contrib, and perhaps removing the reference to "wrapper packages" or perhaps providing a definition which clearly excludes ndiswrapper), or [2] we should be recommending a different course of action with ndiswrapper. I vote against this proposal. Thanks, -- Raul
