On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I hereby appeal to the technical committee to reject to rule on this > request, on the grounds that this is not a technical matter, and > therefore falls outside the authority of the technical committee.
The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror. You may consider that a particular decision has political motivations, but this may be true of many technical decisions; the technical outcomes are still under the purview of the Technical Committee. Having been asked to override the maintainer's decision to list this package as belonging to Section: misc instead of Section: contrib/misc, I believe the committee has a responsibility to consider the issue. > The question at hand is whether the statement "this package is not > useful without non-free software, even though it will run without > non-free software" is relevant wrt the requirement which is in Policy > that no package in main must require any package outside of main to be > built or executed. This is not a technical issue; it is simply a matter > of interpretation of the social contract--which is clearly not a > technical issue. The question we have been asked to consider is, "which section should the ndiswrapper package list in its control file?" This is a technical question, political factors notwithstanding. -- 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
