Ian Jackson writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> > Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> > > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfe
Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly
> > match the "makes life easier for > XXX>" scena
Recommends is wrong for metapackages because it gets upgrades very
wrong. This is why it is used very marginally.
Couldn't this get fixed if
Depends: network-manager-gnome (>= 0.9.4)
was replaced with
Recommends: network-manager-gnome
Breaks: network-manager-gnome (<< 0.9.4)
--
To UNSUBS
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:32:43PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly
> > match the "makes life easier for > XXX>" scenario you describe.
>
> Recommends is wrong for
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 09:47 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:16PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > and also, as Philipp Kern noticed before, things that use N-M to
> > distinguish between online and offline modes will think they're offline
> > after uninstalling N-M until t
[ dropping 542095@ ]
Hi,
On 2012-07-10 15:32, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly
> > match the "makes life easier for > XXX>" scenario you describe.
>
> Recommends is wro
Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly
> match the "makes life easier for XXX>" scenario you describe.
Recommends is wrong for metapackages because it gets upgrades very
wrong. This is why it is used very
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:16PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> and also, as Philipp Kern noticed before, things that use N-M to
> distinguish between online and offline modes will think they're offline
> after uninstalling N-M until they are restarted.
You get this even with n-m installed, if n-
Félix Arreola Rodríguez writes:
> But, ignoring the "a desktop works fine without n-m" thing, n-m makes
> more, much more easy connecting to wifi networks, espeacially for
> laptops. I suggest make Laptop task depend on n-m, in this way, n-m
> don't get installed on desktop systems, just on laptop
El lun, 09-07-2012 a las 19:46 +0100, Ian Jackson escribió:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> > "Breaks unrelated software" on the system is a RC severity, and there's no
> > way one can say a windowing environment is relate
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:46:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> > "Breaks unrelated software" on the system is a RC severity, and there's no
> > way one can say a windowing environment is relate
Adam Borowski writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> "Breaks unrelated software" on the system is a RC severity, and there's no
> way one can say a windowing environment is related to core networking.
> Thus, I'd say, #542095 needs to be upgraded -- an
> WHOOPS, SORRY. Meant to delete this old draft, not send it.
> The issue is valid, but sorry for incomplete mail.
>
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 04:48:01PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, S
WHOOPS, SORRY. Meant to delete this old draft, not send it.
The issue is valid, but sorry for incomplete mail.
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 04:48:01PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante Signel
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been
> > > using it quite successfully without nm installed.
> > Have you tried to use evolution wi
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been
> > using it quite successfully without nm installed.
> Have you tried to use evolution without NM?
I didn't try but it only suggests network-manager. However
Svante Signell kirjoitti:
>On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 08:19 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>> Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've
>been
>> using it quite successfully without nm installed.
>
>Have you tried to use evolution without NM?
Evolution is not, so far as
]] Neil Williams
> Popcon indicates almost nothing - least of all popularity. The
> weaknesses of popcon for archive-related questions is well documented.
> It might give a hint but it is *not* a reliable indicator.
While it's not perfect, I'm not aware of any better tool we have.
Relying on hea
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 08:19 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>
> Adam Borowski kirjoitti:
>
> >Sure, let's start removals with ones that hard-depend on things a
> >window
> >manager shouldn't touch, like network-manager.
Yes, why not!
> Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at l
Hello,
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:36:13 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
> If it can be justified. That's what the objective comparison would
> need to demonstrate. That's an established pattern in Debian - if
> someone wants to add something which is the same as something else,
> there should be a good r
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:36:13PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:42:33 +0200
> Arno Töll wrote:
>
> > On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> > > packages which al
Neil Williams writes:
> Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive.
I think it's hard to defend the contention that the quantity of packages
has some strong relationship to whether or not tho
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:18:00PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:48:43 +
> Bart Martens wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > > > What makes 42 window manager
Adam Borowski kirjoitti:
>Sure, let's start removals with ones that hard-depend on things a
>window
>manager shouldn't touch, like network-manager.
Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been
using it quite successfully without nm installed.
(I hope this message lo
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43?
>
> Who said 42 is acceptable?
Sure, let's start removals with ones that hard-depend on things a window
manager
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:46:55 +
Bart Martens wrote:
> > The maintainer has to make that judgement, it's just one of the things
> > maintainers have to do. popcon is no indicator here, it is about
> > whether there is a bug in Debian, independent of this package.
>
> Not only the maintainer bu
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:48:43 +
Bart Martens wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > > What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43?
> >
> > Who said 42 is acceptable?
>
> The neglec
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43?
>
> Who said 42 is acceptable?
The neglected ones should be removed. If they're all well maintained and all
use
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:48:48PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:45:54 +
> Bart Martens wrote:
>
> > About allowing new packages in Debian in general : On the one hand you have
> > a
> > point that Debian should not collect any free software, but on the other
> > hand
Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43?
Who said 42 is acceptable?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:45:54 +
Bart Martens wrote:
> About allowing new packages in Debian in general : On the one hand you have a
> point that Debian should not collect any free software, but on the other hand
> I
> think that it is OK to have multiple implementations of the same/similar
>
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:42:33 +0200
Arno Töll wrote:
> On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> > packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive.
>
> Letting alone the package in particul
x27;s
> a bit of common sense which all maintainers and prospective maintainers
> should be able to demonstrate. If you feel that's not common, feel free
> to file a bug against the Developer Reference.
>
> Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> pa
Hi,
On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
> Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive.
Letting alone the package in particular (I don't even know it, nor do I
care), I wonder where you'
+++ Neil Williams [2012-06-24 18:51 +0100]:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:31:12 +0200
> Arno Töll wrote:
>
> Dropping the bug CC.
>
> > On 24.06.2012 19:15, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > This bug is *not* useful to anyone. Please close it and find an
> > > RC bug to close instead.
> >
> > I'm pretty su
he Developer Reference.
Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive.
There isn't even any point waiting for such packages to get RC bugs to
be able to remove them. Stop them getting in in the first place.
36 matches
Mail list logo
