Re: Good news on claws-mail
On 18/10/14 13:49, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 18/10/14 23:28, Peter Nieman wrote:
On 17/10/14 20:25, Brian wrote:
Why
it needs to be compiled without dbus is also unknown.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should ask yourself
is: if claws-mail works perfectly well without dbus, then why does
Debian ship a version that depends on it?
Do you have an answer to your question?
Wild guess - notifications?
I don't know claws, but I know from Wheezy that many packages depend on
dbus although dbus isn't necessary for doing the job. Please look here
for examples:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/09/msg00843.html
How is dbus necessary for opening a pdf file, for instance? And mail
clients were able to notify users even before dbus was invented. Trying
to get rid of such dependencies is a good thing, in my humble opinion.
Now my question - why did you remove Brian's question from it's context? TIA
Because I thought it wasn't that relevant for the part I replied to? If
you have an issue with that, I apologize.
Besides, I also have an issue with many people's quoting habits. Like
when they force me to spend my time scrolling.
And I don't understand "TIA", unless it's Spanish.
NOTE: He was responding to the, um, claim that removing dbus in some
unknown way removed a (possible??) systemd *dependency*.
Well, I thought there was a strong relationship between systemd and
dbus. Or are you telling me there is none - neither personnel-wise nor
technology-wise? Wasn't it mentioned on this list some time ago that
Wheezy machines running dbus would be upgraded to systemd whereas
machines not running dbus might have a chance of not being?
By the way, I can't find the word "dependency" that you highlighted in
Steve's post.
I'm all for removing the unnecessary - especially if it's code.
Generally if it's considered a failing the usual course is to file a bug
report but I can't seem to find one. All guidance is appreciated.
As far as I am concerned, I don't have the time right now to learn the
officially accepted procedures of filing bug reports in Debian, I don't
have the time for filing reports for all the bugs I find, and I also
assume that you'd have to register somehow before being allowed to bring
your reports to the maintainers' attention (as they don't read users'
opinions here), which is something I generally try to avoid. And, given
the direction in which Debian has moved in the past few years, I suspect
that many of the bugs I'd report would be considered "features".
If this is an unacceptable attitude by your standards, I apologize once
again.
Reply to: