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

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

Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs Depends"):
> I don't see how this follows.  If n-m has been newly installed and is in
> proper working order, and it sees that there's a trivially-configured
> network interface in /e/n/i that it can take over, and it does so, how does
> networking break?

Well, two ways: firstly, because the user has been told very
vigorously by the maintainers that if they didn't want n-m, they
should disable it rather than removing the package.  If they follow
this advice the result will be that n-m took over their network
interface, and then took it down when it was disabled.

Secondly, it is possible for dhcp entries to be non-trivial.  They may
specify interesting scripts to be run, dhcp options, bridging, etc.
It's not clear to me exactly which of these scenarious result in
what outcome.

Simply not installing the package clearly has the right outcomes and
is obviously the best technical solution to the requirement not to use
n-m.  There is no technical advantage in having n-m installed when the
user doesn't want to use it.

We are only having this conversation at is because the gnome upstream
and maintainers want n-m installed on people's systems for doctrinal
reasons.  Doctrinal reasons are not good reason IMO.


Reply to: