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

Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome

Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This for me is the critical point. Can _anyone_ provide a coherent
> > and fact-based explanation for why this is a good idea ?
> NM is apparently required for various parts of gnome to figure out
> whether it is online or offline. It's also necessary for the network
> configuration components to work properly inside of gnome.

My understanding is that if you have n-m not installed, you get the
same or better experience than if you have n-m installed but not

Of course if you are not using n-m to manage your network then the
network configuration components inside gnome are not going to work
properly.  That's part of the price you pay for not using n-m.  But
this is true whether n-m is not installed, or installed but disabled.

I'm sure somene will correct me if I'm wrong.

> > Secondly, there is a process/approval problem here for the
> > post-wheezy case. I think this resolution text effectively neuters
> > itself after wheezy since AIUI the n-m maintainers naturally think
> > that all the concerns are _already_ satisfactorily addressed.
> This is only the case if we are convinced the NM maintainer(s) are
> acting in bad faith. While that's certainly a possibility, we
> shouldn't assume it.

I don't think that my complaint here involves assuming bad faith on
the part of the gnome maintainers.  It simply doesn't make any sense
to ask them to do further work to resolve these problems to their
satisfaction, when in their view insofar as there are problems they
are already satisfactorily resolved.

If I were in the position of the gnome maintainers here (ie if I were
the one being overruled) I would be making exactly the same point.

> Perhaps specifically spelling out what the
> technical requirements are would be sufficient to mitigate the
> potential for the appearance of bad faith. Such as:

I want to reiterate that I don't think this problem involves supposing
any bad faith.  It's that since we disagree with the maintainers about
the requirements and are overruling them, asking them to set the
requirements does not make sense and is inviting misunderstanding.

> 1. NM must not break an existing working networking configuration.

Is this possible ?  I mean, I worry that interpreted broadly ("_any_
existing ...") this would simply mean that n-m should never do

Perhaps a better approach would be this, post-wheezy:

   While n-m remains a Depends of gnome or gnome-core, any bug report
   from a user that installing n-m broke their system's networking is
   to be treated by the gnome and network-manager maintainers as a
   valid, release-critical, bug.

We should ask the n-m maintainer to comment on this proposal.  If they
think it's unworkable then that amounts to a statement that it will
not be possible to reliably identify, and fix, all such problems.


Reply to: