Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
>> The primary case of NM breaking things is when it's installed with
>> wicd, AFAICT. The other cases of NM breaking things are RC bugs in NM.
> There are no other competitors to wicd and n-m then ?
It's also possible to configure wireless networking manually without using
either wicd or ifup and using wpa_supplicant directly, but I think that's
close enough to the ifup use case (and similar enough from the n-m
perspective) that we can consider it the same.
There may be other more comprehensive systems like n-m and wicd, but if so
I've not heard of them.
> They do indeed appear to strongly believe that but they have advanced no
> cogent reasons. (You agree, don't you, that they haven't advanced any
> cogent reasons?)
Actually, Josselin did say, in one of his recent messages, the reason that
I had hypothesized: that n-m is so much better that he's not sure that
people who previously opted out of n-m stated a preference that should
apply to the current n-m.
Whether or not one agrees with that reason, I do think it's cogent and
goes directly to the point, namely upgrade behavior.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: