Bug#550560: marked as done (korganizer: Shouldn't depend on akonadi-server)
Your message dated Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:49:38 +0200
with message-id <20091011164938.GA32145@ana.debian.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#550560: korganizer: Shouldn't depend on akonadi-server
has caused the Debian Bug report #550560,
regarding korganizer: Shouldn't depend on akonadi-server
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
550560: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=550560
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: korganizer
Version: 4:4.3.2-1
Severity: normal
This bug is the same as #548888 that you closed without solving the issue.
Akonadi might be a pillar, but if it is not necessary (and we both know it isn't) it
should be suggested and not required. Because this still violates the policy.
What I suggest to do is to put akonadi in some metapackage so it is installed when
the rest of kdepim is installed.
But honestly I don't see any reason to violate the debian policy just because kde
developers care so much about akonadi.
What I am saying is that debian policy should be respected. If you think it is wrong,
submit a bug to change it and if the change is accepted, then, you can do it your way.
Regards
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (101, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.31odino (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages korganizer depends on:
ii kdebase-runtime 4:4.3.2-1 runtime components from the offici
ii kdelibs5 4:4.3.2-1 core libraries for all KDE 4 appli
ii kdepim-runtime 4:4.3.2-1 Runtime components for akonadi-kde
ii kdepimlibs5 4:4.3.2-1 core libraries for KDE PIM 4 appli
ii libc6 2.9-27 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libkdepim4 4:4.3.2-1 KDE PIM library
ii libknotificationitem-1 4:4.3.2-1 library for new way of handling sy
ii libkontactinterfaces4 4:4.3.2-1 KDE Kontact interface library
ii libphonon4 4:4.5.3-2 Qt 4 Phonon module
ii libqt4-dbus 4:4.5.3-2 Qt 4 D-Bus module
ii libqt4-qt3support 4:4.5.3-2 Qt 3 compatibility library for Qt
ii libqt4-xml 4:4.5.3-2 Qt 4 XML module
ii libqtcore4 4:4.5.3-2 Qt 4 core module
ii libqtgui4 4:4.5.3-2 Qt 4 GUI module
ii libstdc++6 4.4.1-6 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii perl 5.10.1-5 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction
ii phonon 4:4.5.3-2 Qt 4 Phonon module metapackage
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg-15 compression library - runtime
korganizer recommends no packages.
korganizer suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 08:30:16AM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> Package: korganizer
> Version: 4:4.3.2-1
> Severity: normal
>
> This bug is the same as #548888 that you closed without solving the issue.
>
> Akonadi might be a pillar, but if it is not necessary (and we both know it isn't) it
> should be suggested and not required. Because this still violates the policy.
> What I suggest to do is to put akonadi in some metapackage so it is installed when
> the rest of kdepim is installed.
> But honestly I don't see any reason to violate the debian policy just because kde
> developers care so much about akonadi.
>
> What I am saying is that debian policy should be respected. If you think it is wrong,
> submit a bug to change it and if the change is accepted, then, you can do it your way.
>
Please, stop opening duplicated bugs for the same issue. You have been told
already that akonadi is here to stay and there is not any debian policy
violation here.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: