On 11/01/2011 04:46 PM, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 02:56:53PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >> We should do it when we judge that the benefits are worth the costs. >> In this particular case the costs seem to be minimal. There isn't >> even a direct patch-carrying cost, since the dependency is expressed >> in our own control files. > What should it be called: gnome-without-network-manager?
> I really don't like evolution. Can I have a gnome-without-evolution? > (Only half-joking. I *really* don't like evolution). > Where do you draw the line? > (Of course, any Debian developer can freely create such a dependency package, > it doesn't have to be the GNOME maintainers.) > In case it isn't clear, I don't think it's a good idea. its not about preference, network-manager is breaking many configurations, (i don't care about evolution because it doesn't break anything, its one of the many packages installed but not used), just look at the bugs: #624159 #433734 #408292 #637005 ... http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=network-manager;dist=unstable i believe a way of installing network-manager, but disabling it completly would be enough for many people. -- Florian Reitmeir E-Mail: flor...@reitmeir.org Tel: +43 650 2661660 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4eb02436.3070...@reitmeir.org
