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

Re: Recommends for metapackages

On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 23:57 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Noel David Torres Taño <envite@rolamasao.org> (11/07/2012):
> > > Your view is irrelevant here: GNOME project considers it essential.
> > 
> > Gnome view is the one irrelevant. This is Debian GNU/Linux, not Gnome
> > GNU/Linux. We need to care for our users (both proficient and novice [1]),
> > not for Gnome developers desires. And if they had a flawed design we can
> > patch, we should do as we do with any other flawed software.
> Blah blah blah. What matters is the maintainers' views (as long as
> common sense applies). They chose to follow upstream's choices, which is
> usually a sane thing to do (unless upstream is crazy).
If Gnome core are really convinced that NM is essential, why Gnome could
be run without NM? Why not all Gnome applications are depending on NM
for network detection? Why the applications that depends on NM like
evolution have all a fall-back mode?

I'm maintaining a package which upstream delivers as all in one (600MB)
and refuses to support splitting. I've split it into 22 packages because
I know and got requests from users who want to have it in machines with
small disks and/or low internet.
Upstream never accepted that, but I didn't gave up, because what matters
for me is user not upstream

> Now if you don't like those choices, pick your own packages yourself,
> build your own meta package, or whatever.
An push it to repository? Then Yes I can upload a
gnome-desktop-workstation package to be used for atypical users like me

> Plenty of RC bugs to submit patches for. Surely more interesting than
> those meta packages, right?
I'm not interested in patching Gnome myself, I'm a user, not a gnome


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: