Re: Good news on claws-mail
On 19/10/14 02:29, Peter Nieman wrote:
> 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.
That's a tangent I'll avoid. I'm easily confused so I'll stick to the
package being discussed.
> Trying to get rid of such dependencies is a good thing, in my humble
> opinion.
Agreed. Provided I actually understand the why the dependency exists in
the first place. That is - when there is an *actual* dependency - as
opposed to a *recommendation*. There is a difference.
>
>> 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?
>
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. :)
Shifting the claim of having removed a systemd "dependency" to a
discussion about dbus doesn't help clarify what the OP's point is -
which is what Brian asked.
> If you have an issue with that, I apologize.
No problems.
> 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.
Thanks In Advance. My turn to apologise. It was lazy and unclear.
Your problem with people's quoting habits is not unique - I often
require a screen reader, and if I have to scroll up and down a post to
discern the meaning is a pain. Additionally having to read multiple
posts because of selective quoting misapplied (or deliberately done to
obscure things e.g. shifting goal posts) even more so.
>
>> 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.
There's a strong relationship between milk and butter. Make of it what
you will.
-------------8<---------------------->8----------------------------
> By the way, I can't find the word "dependency" that you highlighted
> in Steve's post.
Those pesky internet pixies!
<quote>
Reco writes:
> This page tells otherwise:
> https://packages.debian.org/jessie/claws-mail
> OK, it's 'libdbus-1-3', not 'dbus' dependency, but libdbus-1-3
> recommends dbus.
</quote>
NOTE: Steve was the OP (who made the unsupported claim that removing a
"recommendation" for dbus removed a "dependency" on systemd - using
other words, the conflating of "dependency" and "recommends" was Reco's
comment - a mistake which could have been made for a number of
understandable reasons.
>
>> 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,
With the greatest respect:-
it's not hard - type "reportbug" in a terminal/console and press the
Enter key, then follow the prompts.
> 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.
That statement is wrong on several counts.
> 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.
I would hope it's unacceptable just about anywhere and I'm astounded
that you can't see why. That you feel it's justified, or true, would
seem to demand not only contempt for the dds and a large amount of
confirmation bias. The former is probably unintentional[*1], the latter
a human failing - in combination they just make life harder than it has
to be.
[*1] the collective noun for uninformed opinion is not fact
>
I accept that we have different ways of "seeing" Open Source. I lack
your ability to know what will or won't happen with bug reports that
have not been filed - though I do suspect a bug report demanding the
removal of a "recommendation" simply because the program doesn't
"depend" on the "recommended" software - would rightly be ignored. Much
the same as if I asked that all icons be removed - I don't need them.
Apologies if any of the above is hard to translate. "depend" as in a car
with an internal combustion engine "depends" on fuel for it's operation,
but fluid for the windscreen wipers is only "recommended" (the car will
still work without wiper fluid).
Kind regards
--
"Some people like to make life a little tougher than it is
Well the more you try to shave the cat
The more the thing will bite and scratch
Its best I think to leave it's fur and to listen to it's silky purr"
~ Cake "Tougher Than It Is"
Reply to: