Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies
Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
> Le lundi 27 juin 2005 à 15:12 +0200, Arnaud Patard a écrit :
>> > It was also suggested to remove capplets and put everything back into
>> > gnome-control-center. Arnaud, would you agree with such a change?
>>
>> Sorry but I don't. The split has a meaning. g-c-c is like the viewer and
>> the capplets the contents (eg you may also use the gnome-panel to see/use
>> the capplets). The problem is only is the dependencies.
>
> I don't see why they should be split, even though they are different.
> The split would have a sense if gnome-control-center wasn't installed by
> default, but this isn't the case as our policy is to make gnome-core
> depend on it.
>
Okay. But would that mean unsplitting packages that are in gnome-core
depends ? I'll tend to say no (maybe I'm wrong)..., so why should the
g-c-c be a particular case ?
>> Unfortunately, as
>> http://incoming.debian.org/control-center_2.10.1-4_i386.changes shows,
>> you have uploaded without waiting for my answer (Please, don't say
>> something like 'you should have answered sooner' as I was without any
>> internet link for the whole week-end until this afternoon).
>
> During the weekend, Sébastien and Jordi agreed with these changes. Of
> course I waited for further input, and on Monday morning Marc (who is,
> as I understand it, the main backup maintainer for your packages) told
> me I could upload. Given the lack of activity on your side these times,
> I thought his word was sufficient.
I'm working on a kernel project that wants/needs that most of the driver
are included in 2.6.13 (even some hardware vendors are waiting for that)
so it's taking a lot of time. That's why there's not much activity with
my packages.
>
> If you really disagree with the changes, you can upload again. The
> policy of the GNOME team has always been to make changes quickly, coming
> back on decisions if necessary. But in this case, you should really ask
> yourself if the split makes any sense.
I've replied to the mail because I wanted a discussion about that. I
gave my opinion with my arguments. Just give me arguments (like the one
you gave at the top of this mail) to show that I'm wrong and I'll change
my mind.
>
>> Moreover,
>> looking at the build-date of the package (Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005
>> 19:11:37 +0200), I don't know what I should think about this mail :(
>
> Sure. I asked, then I built the package to see how it would look like.
> But I waited for some more input to upload it.
okay.
Reply to: