Re: Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion
On Wednesday, January 01, 2014 08:47:13 Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 08:09:56AM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 20:12:20 Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:13:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > >> So unless the TC wants to remove a great number of packages from the
> > > >> archive, you need to take into account the fact that some voluntary
> > > >> manpower is required to implement your decision.
> > > >
> > > > I think the current Debian GNOME team has a not-undeserved reputation
> > > > for
> > > > being obstructionist with respect to bugfixes that require divergence
> > > > from
> > > > upstream's stated direction. If the team demonstrated they were open
> > > > to
> > > > contributions of the kind you described, volunteers to do the work
> > > > would
> > > > not be hard to come by.
> > >
> > > That's an impressively high amount of doublespeak packed into a single
> > > paragraph, particularly the words "bugfixes", "volunteers", and
> > > "contributions". At a minimum, I think you're overstating the situation
> > > by refusing to acknowledge that the GNOME team does not consider the
> > > changes forced upon them to be "bugfixes".
> >
> > Responding specifically to this:
> > > You (and other members of the TC) disliked GNOME's requirement of
> > > NetworkManager, for reasons I still have yet to see explained coherently
> > > anywhere. You forced the GNOME team to remove it. I certainly hope
> > > you find "volunteers" willing to do that kind of work increasingly hard
> > > to come by.
> >
> > Re: dependency removal -- sort of. The reasoning is explained for the
> > most part in the tech-ctte decision for #681834. [1] But just to fully
> > make this clear I'll also provide a brief summary of what I think
> > happened at the time.
> [...snip explanation...]
>
> I appreciate the explanation, and I'm familiar with the contents of the
> decision. I simply see nothing there that should have motivated a
> tech-ctte decision, rather than simply a couple of bug reports against
> network-manager and an added Conflicts/Breaks or two.
In other words, what you're saying is that not only is there no problem that
the GNOME maintainers mandated that I get NetworkManager, which I personally
most certainly don't want, but that the tech-ctte should have made a ruling
that would have forced users to uninstall wicd too. :-/ Not cool.
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
Reply to: