[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs Depends

Michael Biebl writes ("Re: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs Depends"):
> Am 17.07.2012 14:56, schrieb Ian Jackson:
> > It seems to me that:
> > 
> >  * n-m breaks the networking of enough people that this is a
> >    significant problem which should be fixed.
> This is pure FUD without further details. Do you have any bug numbers in
> particular? I don't claim that there aren't any bugs in NM but if there
> are issues, they should be fixed in NM.

The discussion of this has been extensive.  Also, as Adam Borowski
points out, it is perfectly possible for n-m to fail in a certain
peculiar situation but for that not to be a bug in n-m.  n-m does not
have to be all things to all people, networking wise.  It doesn't even
necessarily have to be all things to all gnome users.  The bug is in
the gnome metapackages which unconditionally pull it into all systems.

> >  * There is no good reason not to use Recommends (or indeed Suggests)
> >    in a metapackage.
> Not true, Joss put it very well at
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645656#65
> Ian, you can of course dismiss all those reasons (as you did in the
> past), but that doesn't mean that those reasons are not valid.

I don't find those reasons convincing.

> I have the impression that you are biased against NM regarding this
> issue and in general.

I'm using n-m myself on the very computer I'm now typing at, after
having switched to it from ifupdown in my previous install, and have
no regrets on that score.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

> >  * In particular, tests have shown that the remainder of gnome
> >    functions as expected when network-manager is not installed; the
> >    situation appears to be the similar to that which occurs if n-m is
> >    installed but the system's active network connection is not one
> >    made by n-m.
> Those so called "tests" have been done by Adam Borowski, who is known to
> hate NM, so he is not impartial on this topic.

However, he has actually done the tests.  We should believe him unless
you can show that he has made a mistake.  Furthermore, you are coming
rather close to accusing him of dishonesty.

If you would like to do tests of your own, I'd be interested to hear
about any serious malfunctions which would be unreasonable in context
(the context being a user who has deliberately violated a Recommends
and deliberately deinstalled gnome's networking management

> And no, it doesn't work as expected. GNOME users expect to be able to
> setup their network with a single click.

You are twisting my word `expected'.  What I meant was that a user who
deinstalls network-manager, deliberately violating the Recommends,
should reasonably expect that some network-related things in gnome
won't work quite right (or at all).

That, presumably, is the price they are willing to pay.  They express
that choice precisely by violating the Recommends.


Reply to: