Re: Good news on claws-mail
On Sat 18 Oct 2014 at 17:29:58 +0200, Peter Nieman wrote:
> On 18/10/14 13:49, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >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.
The original post was about claws. My reply was also about claws. If I
hadn't known anything about the topic I wouldn't have responded. You
obviously take a different view about things you cannot be bothered to
check. The OP made a specific *technical* claim. It has been shown to be
fatuous.
brian@desktop:~$ apt-cache -i rdepends dbus | wc -l
63
None of the 63 packages is a PDF reader.
> >Now my question - why did you remove Brian's question from it's context? TIA
[Snip]
> >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
systemd doesn't depend on dbus. Your suspicions that there is a love-in
between the two is unfounded; they are just good friends.
> 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 have no recollection of seeing what you mention. It is completely
incorrect anyway. On the other hand. the actual mechanism involved in a
wheezy upgrade has been been spoken about a number of times. That seems
to have passed you by.
Reply to: