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

Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome

* Ian Jackson (ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [121109 10:51]:
> There is no technical reason to prefer a situation where the user has
> n-m installed but disabled to one where they don't have it installed.
> There _are_ technical reasons why (on systems where n-m's operation
> is not desired) not installing it is better.

While I agree with you on the technical part, however, there is a
difference: We are not asked "what is the technical best solution",
but "please overrule the decision of the gnome maintainers". If it
would be the first question, I'd tend to agree with not setting a
depends. However, it isn't. And I don't think the situation with "nm
isn't start" is still so bad that it warrants an overruling of the
maintainers. (With my normal DD hat on, I think I'd prefer to not have
n-m installed via gnome, but well - that's not the question at hand.)

> The biggest technical downside is that this approach doesn't solve the
> upgrade problem without a good deal of complicated machinery to try to
> determine whether the system should pretend that n-m isn't installed
> (or annoying prompts, or something).

That has to be fixed, yes. It might be helpful to put a few more
things into the resolution to give examples what needs to be fixed.

> Secondly, there is a process/approval problem here for the post-wheezy
> case.

Same here - I'm happy for whatever useful process to be put into it. I
however think once a dist-upgrade installing n-m could be done without
it getting active without jumping through loops (or: disturbing
otherwise setup network interfaces) we shouldn't force the maintainers
to not set a depends.


Reply to: