Re: Bug#645656: network-manager in Gnome
Jon Dowland writes ("Re: Bug#645656: network-manager in Gnome"):
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 02:56:53PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We should do it when we judge that the benefits are worth the costs.
> > In this particular case the costs seem to be minimal. There isn't
> > even a direct patch-carrying cost, since the dependency is expressed
> > in our own control files.
> What should it be called: gnome-without-network-manager?
There's a legitimate argument to be had about whether this is
worthwhile. But the "don't want network-manager" use case seems to be
quite common and is different to many other examples.
> I really don't like evolution. Can I have a gnome-without-evolution?
If you install evolution when you don't want it, the only real cost is
increased disk usage (and increased network usage for the updates to
it). If you install n-m when it's not wanted, the result is that your