--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: tech-ctte: Use of Recommends instead of Depends for metapackages
- From: Noel David Torres Taño <envite@rolamasao.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:32:15 +0100
- Message-id: <20120716223215.21339.26245.reportbug@tochox.rolamasao.org>
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: minor
Dear committe
First of all, I'm not a Debian Developer, but just a long time user, and recent Maintainer. I'm writing this since I found no request on Constitution requiring being a DD for submitting an issue to the Committe.
As suggested by Ian Jackson on [1], the discussion at hand become circular and repetitive, and this is why I'm submitting this to the committe. I'm not requesting a ruling, but just a clarification. Anyway, a ruling can be made about the issue, or even some developers could be overruled.
Whole thing started at [2] in an ITP for a new Window Manager. Thread developed into a more general discussion about packages in the archive that duplicates other packages functionality [3], sometimes focusing in the amount of window managers present in Debian. At a certain moment [4] network-manager entered the discussion as an example of a point where Debian should start removing window managers instead of vetting new ones. A separated thread raised at [5] to discuss the duplicates issue, but network-manager issue continued at [6] and a bit later [7].
Then network-manager centered the discussion at [8] where it was stated that it breaks working software like udev or ifupdown, and it was suggested that the relationship between the gnome package and the network-manager package should not be a Depends chain, but have a Recommends.
FYI actual chain is:
gnome Depends gnome-core
gnome-core Depends network-manager-gnome
network-manager-gnome Depends network-manager
and Adam Borowski suggested a Recommends instead of a Depends, most probably in the gnome-core -> network-manager-gnome step.
Two sides formed. One side critizising network-manager and pressing for a Recommends relationship. Other side defending network-manager and defending a Depends relationship. Main argument of the defender side was that gnome is not a normal package but a metapackage, and thus it should include a set of software using mainly Depends even if there is actually not a real software dependency.
>From this, discussion changed names again [9] and get called "Recommends for metapackages", being a two-fold discussion. On one hand, it was a discussion for and against metapackages using Recommends as a genera topic. On the other hand, at the same time it was a discussion about if network-manager should be or not a Recommends instead of a Depends. Arguments were given both to the general question and to the particular one.
I've tried to be as neutral as possible in the explanation above. My particular point of view on the general is that metapackages are not so special as to avoid the Policy, which states that Recommends should be used for packages that are to be found in all but unusual installations, and metapackages sometimes are used by user with special needs who need to avoid or deinstall certain not required pieces of the platform. My particular point of view about the particular is that since network-manager causes issues to a not negligible fraction of our users, some of which can want to use gnome, the relationship between these two packages should be a Recommends, since the lack of network-manager causes no breakage at all on a gnome system. A complete resume of my arguments (and I hope those of others are included) is on [10]. I can not present a resume on the arguments from the other side since none was provided.
I do not want to get the Depends side undefended, I hope you can involve in the discussion some of their representattives.
I request from the committe a position about the general issue of Recommends on metapackages (but I wish a ruling about network-manager in particular).
Regards
Noel Torres
er Envite
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00388.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg00821.html
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg00838.html
[4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg00860.html
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg01057.html
[6] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg00884.html
[7] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00154.html
[8] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00155.html
[9] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00211.html
[10] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00403.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
With Bdale's vote, the outcome is no longer in doubt [A=6, F=0.], the
decision of the technical committee is below.
Whereas:
1. The gnome-core metapackage is intended to reflect the core of the
GNOME desktop environment: the basic tools and subsystems that
together constitute GNOME. The gnome metapackage is intended to
reflect the broader desktop environment, including extra components
and applications.
2. network-manager is the GNOME network control system, and is
recommended for most GNOME users. Some Debian GNOME users don't like
some of network-manager's behavior and prefer to instead use other
tools, either basic ifupdown or other frameworks such as wicd.
3. In squeeze, the gnome metapackage lists network-manager in Recommends
but not Depends. In wheezy, currently, network-manager has moved from
gnome to gnome-core, and from Recommends to Depends. This represents
a substantially increased insistance that users of the GNOME
metapackages have network-manager installed; specifically, there is no
longer any way to install any but the most minimal GNOME metapackage
(gnome-session) without installing network-manager, and users who have
gnome or gnome-core installed but have removed or never installed
network-manager will have network-manager installed during an upgrade
from squeeze.
4. For most applications and components, the only drawback of this would
be some additional disk space usage, since the application, despite
being installed, wouldn't need to be used. However, network-manager
assumes that, if it is installed, it should attempt to manage the
system's network configuration. It attempts to avoid overriding local
manual configuration, but it isn't able to detect all cases where the
user is using some other component or system to manage networking.
The user has to take separate, explicit (and somewhat unusual for the
average user) action to disable network-manager after it has been
installed.
5. The Technical Committee believes that this will cause undesireable
behavior for upgrades from squeeze, and (of somewhat lesser
importance) will make it more difficult than necessary for GNOME users
to swap network management components, something for which there
appears to be noticable demand. We therefore believe that
network-manager should be moved to Recommends in gnome-core.
6. Please note that this is not a general statement about GNOME
components. It is very specific to network-manager because all of the
following apply:
(i) The package takes action automatically because it is installed,
rather than being a component that can either be run or not at the
user's choice.
(ii) The package has historically been recommended rather than listed
as a dependency, so existing Debian users are used to that
behavior and will expect it to be preserved during upgrades.
(ii) There is both demonstrable, intentional widespread replacement of
that package by Debian GNOME users and no significant loss of
unrelated GNOME desktop functionality by replacing it with a
different component.
If any of these points did not apply, the situation would be
significantly different.
Therefore:
7. The Technical Committee overrules the decision of the gnome-core
metapackage maintainers. The dependency from gnome-core to
network-manager-gnome should be downgraded to Recommends.
8. The Technical Committee requests that the Release Managers unblock
the update to implement this decision, so that this change may be
released in wheezy.
Don Armstrong
--
J.W. Grant: "Bastard!"
Rico: "Yes, Sir. In my case, an accident of birth. But you, Sir,
you're a self-made man."
-- Henry "Rico" Fardan in "The Professionals"
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--- End Message ---