On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 23 octobre 2012 à 15:16 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : > > 2. Our intent, as stated in the rationale section of our previous > > decision (#681834, paras 3 and 5), is that squeeze users who have > > gnome installed but not network-manager do not find that > > network-manager becomes installed when they upgrade to wheezy. > > There lies the real disagreement. > > Our very intent is that squeeze users who have gnome installed but not > NM *do* find that NM becomes installed when they upgrade to wheezy. > (Actually we should have done that for the lenny→squeeze upgrade but > vocal people already won that time.)
What in particular breaks if NM is not installed?[2] I personally understand that the gnome maintainers want NM to be installed by default in all but unusual configurations, which is why I even bothered to draft option B. > The fact that it could potentially, in very specific to-be-described > cases, break something, should be documented in the release notes. This is certainly one approach that could be taken. However, from the information available to me, the breakage caused by these situations outweighs the breakage caused by not having NM installed[2] if someone has chosen to ignore recommends. > Everything else Ian and you have proposed derives from the fact that > you want to force NM out. My only concern is for the users of gnome; I don't have a personal stake in this race at all. Continuing to ascribe these motivations to me and Ian is hurtful, and not appropriate. Please stop. > > B 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a > > B dependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency > > B should be replaced with a dependecy on network-manager-gnome (>= > > B 0.9.4) | wicd. > > Seriously, WTFF? Is it just a show-off option to make us think it’s > better to use a Recommends instead? I proposed this option[1] as an attempt to mitigate the breakage caused by having NM installed when wicd is being used to configure networking. I personally don't like it, but I proposed it to attempt to address your concerns about making sure that NM was installed, while still mitigating breakage for people who have installed wicd. > > B 5. Bugs in network-manager-gnome which break the functionality of > > B existing /etc/network/interfaces rules are to be considered RC. > > Not replacing /e/n/i means that NM will not detect your connection, > and as such your desktop will be unusable. In what specific way?[2] Don Armstrong 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/10/msg00027.html with rationale here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/10/msg00036.html along with the ensuing thread. 2: I still don't have an answer to this question after I and others have repeatedly asked for it. http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/10/msg00011.html -- life's not a paragraph And death i think is no parenthesis -- e.e. cummings "Four VII" _is 5_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
