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

Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > One idea that came up was to check wether wicd is in use (or for
> > that matter ifupdown), and then show a debconf prompt explaining
> > the situation, and letting the user chose if he wants to take over
> > network management by NetworkManager. It would work similar to how
> > we currently handle multiple installed display managers, like gdm3
> > or kdm (btw, gdm3 is currently a hard depends of gnome-core). If
> > the users choses no, we could disable the service via update-rc.d
> > disable, so the invoke-rc.d later on in postinst would not start
> > NM.
> I believe some solution along this line which mitigates breakage
> caused by the co-installation of wicd and NM would go a long way to
> resolve the technical concerns of having gnome depend on NM.[0]
> I'm concerned that such a solution won't be ready, tested, and
> accepted in time for wheezy, however. But I can certainly see
> proposing an option to have an explicit sunset on the CTTE's
> requirement for gnome to only recommend NM once this work is done.[1]

I've gone ahead and drafted a B option which does this (attached).
I've also made an explicit request for a release note documenting that
people using gnome should (re)consider using NM. [That still requires
someone to "do the work", of course.]

I'd like to get some more input on this, and then call for a vote
sometime this week if at all possible.

Don Armstrong

LEADERSHIP -- A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with
autodestructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to
the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their
 -- The HipCrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan 
    (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p256-7)

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu
1. The TC notes the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to
   implement the TC decision in #681834 by:
    (a) softening the dependency in the gnome-core metapackage
        from Depends to Recommends, as required
    (b) adding a new dependency in the gnome metapackage,
        as a Depends.  (In squeeze, this is where the dependency
        was, but it was a Recommends.)

2. Our intent, as stated in the rationale section of our previous
   decision (#681834, paras 3 and 5), is that squeeze users who have
   gnome installed but not network-manager do not find that
   network-manager becomes installed when they upgrade to wheezy.

3. A Recommends from gnome to network-manager-gnome would serve no
   purpose in wheezy as gnome Depends on gnome-core which already
   Recommends network-manager-gnome.


A 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
A    dependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
A    should be removed for the release of wheezy.

B 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
B    dependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
B    should be removed for the release of wheezy. After the release of
B    wheezy, if in the opinion of the NM maintainer the concerns
B    raised in §4 of the CTTE decision #681834 have been addressed
B    through technical means, the meta-gnome maintainers may freely
B    adjust the dependencies as usual.

5. We request that the Release Team unblock update(s) to meta-gnome so
   that our decisions may be implemented in wheezy.

6. We request that a release note is created explaining that gnome
   users who do not currently have NM installed consider installing

Reply to: