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 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?
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. There are benefits to users for putting software into the "innermost" category for which it qualifies; consciously putting a package in contrib when it could go into main raises questions of *why* it was put in contrib -- and which other packages might get the same treatment. If putting it in contrib were simply an accident, then that bug could just be fixed with no policy implications. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
