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

Re: Bug#645656: network-manager in Gnome

On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:21:04AM -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:42:47PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Yes, that much is obvious.  So the answer is that there is no harm in
> > actually removing network-manager.
> There is harm in diverging from upstream.  We're a software
> distribution, by default we integrate existing software and we try to do
> so staying as close to upstream as possible. We do diverge from upstream
> when we've good reasons to, but we don't do that "just because".

While this is true, it is certainly our place to critique questionable
design choices made by upstream and I do feel that we are failing to
do that sufficiently, particularly in the case of Gnome.  Just rolling
over and accepting what upstreams do is just as bad as divergence on
our part.  Our distribution is intended to integrate existing software,
but n-m fails to play nicely with the rest of the networking packages,
and so I do think its use should be questioned.

> FWIW, I don't think that escalating this to -devel in search of
> pitchfork equipped network-manager haters is a good strategy either.

In this case I think it's appropriate.  n-m has long been
controversial, and "forcing" it upon users who chose to install
Gnome is obviously going to cause some degree of upset.

A semi-related peeve of mine is the way the Gnome menu system (and
others are equally at fault) deliberately exclude "other" non-approved
applications, the result being that every menu system in Debian is
crippled in one way or another.  We don't have a single menu system
that actually does a complete job (i.e. does not miss out needed
entries), which is a great pity.


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Reply to: