On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:55:03AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Experiemnts reported on debian-devel show that this `tight coupling' > is more a matter of doctrine than an actual hard functional > dependency. > > Indeed on two of our platorms network-manager isn't even supported, so > it is just left out of the gnome-core metapackage! I don't think that this is a valid argument given various comments of the Debian GNOME maintainers that GNOME on kfreebsd is broken. (But if there's no user and hence continuous testing there will be no bugs being reported.) I saw Michael arguing specifically that people focus on removing functionality that does not exist on kfreebsd to make it built, but that nobody actually tries the result. I see the arch-specific depends on network-manager of the gnome-core metapackage in the same way. It must be installable on kfreebsd to migrate because it's considered a blocker from a britney/testing point of view. Kind regards Philipp Kern
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature