On Fri 05 Apr 2019 at 17:01:33 (-0400), Lee wrote:
> On 4/5/19, Reco <recovery...@enotuniq.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 04:01:50PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:56:49PM -0000, Curt wrote:
> >> > My understanding is the problem lies in the Gnome/Wayland combo (which
> >> > is the default combo starting with Buster).
> >>
> >> The problem there, IMHO, is Wayland being the default desktop choice.
> >
> > ... on amd64/i386 only. Whenever Wayland is the problem or the solution,
> > punishing all other supported architectures seems extreme.
>
> That's what I don't understand. Why remove the package if it's only a
> problem with some desktops?
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Wayland
> Unsupported Desktop environments:
> Cinnamon: discussed
> MATE: planned, source (2014)
> XFCE: planned
>
> Can't [whatever installs the software] notice that Gnome is
> installed/selected & not install synaptic? Or patch synaptic to
> realize it's running under Gnome & spit out an error message and quit?
I think a better solution would be what's suggested in message #60
of the bug report:
"Why not make a [Conflicts:] with Wayland / Gnome? It's not
possible to make sure that synaptic installs on a [Conflicts:]
that would remove Wayland?"
This is probably the easiest option to support as it should be
possible to implement just by adding a line to the two Packages
files for the architectures affected.
> Everybody pays the price because it doesn't work with Gnome seems a bit much.
Given a straight toss-up though, I think synaptic has to give way
because there are plenty of alternatives. I'd never heard of it until
a few people started mentioning it here, and I'd never consider using
it myself on X except as an ordinary user.
Cheers,
David.
