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 answer to my question. > 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. You are suggesting that there is some "mistreatment" in putting a package in the wrong category. As in "might get the same treatment". Is the idea that you somehow wound the ego of a package by putting it in contrib? That surely isn't right, of course. But I'm stuck for wondering. If a package is wrongly put in "lib" when it belongs in "libdevel", for example, or vice versa, there is no huge flame war, nothing bad happens, we just carry on. Such a state could continue for years without anybody getting upset or much caring. I just *assume* that errors in categorization will be made. That doesn't mean errors are good, of course. But my question is: what *harm* does this particular error (if it is an error) cause? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
