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

Re: solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem

+++ Ian Jackson [2012-07-13 23:48 +0100]:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: Recommends for metapackages"):
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:32:19PM -0600, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:21:00PM +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> > > > Installing N-M breaks unrelated software.
> > > 
> > > No. At most it breaks *related* software.
> > 
> > Exactly, that's why it's the "gnome-core" package that's RC-buggy, not
> > network-manager.  Unless someone thinks a desktop environment's core
> > function is to mess with the network, that is.
> I think this discussion became circular and repetitive and useless
> quite some time ago.
> It is plain that the gnome-core maintainers are not going to agree to
> make this change.  Therefore people who want the change made should
> either (a) shut up and put up with the status quo (b) refer the matter
> to the TC.

I am someone who employs one of the various workarounds to get the gnome
software package set _without_ network-manager (I generally insert an
exit 0 into network manager's init script (which is ugly), and install wicd)

I don't use n-m because it doesn't play nice with usb0 gadget

I was just about to refer this to the tech ctte myself when I found
that it had already been done.

It seems to me that there are a range of possible solutions, and
despite the length of this thread I don't think all have been
mentioned, or certainly not summarised:

1) network-manager could be recommends: instead of depends: in

2) An alternate meta-package could be provided for gnome-desktop
without network-manager.

3) Network manager should have an /etc/default/ ENABLE/DISABLE switch
(as wicd does)

4) gnome-core should be set to depend on network-manager | wicd (or
some network-chooser virtual package)

All of those are possible solutions which will satisfy varying numbers
of people. They are not all mutually exclusive and are listed
approximately in order of utility in terms of solving the issue (IMHO).

I do believe that at least one of the above should be done for wheezy.

Principal hats:  Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM

Reply to: