On Wednesday 30 September 2009 15:23:09 you wrote: > >> This seems wrong: I have both packages installed here (thanks to > >> "--force-conflicts") and they both work fine. Of course, if you ask > >> them both to manage the same device, it won't work, but that's no reason > >> to prevent reasonable people from installing them. > > > > Why would you want to have both of them installed? They are both "network > > managers", and I can't see any reason why one should use both of them. > > My experience over the last few years has been that NM hasn't been able > to get their wifi support working reliably and sanely. Hopefully that > will be fixed at some point in the future, but for now, wicd is the > wifi-manager of choice. > > OTOH, wicd's support for VPN is not nearly as good as NM's. So using > the two does make sense. As a matter of fact I not only use those two > but even a third one: ifplugd for the wired ethernet. This last one is > mostly for historical reasons, but still, using all 3 at the same time > works just fine, and indeed there's no "conflicts" between ifplugd and > network-manager or wicd.
That's reasonable. I'm committing the change, even if I fear this will cause a whole lot of bugs from people wanting to completely switch between the two :/ Just FYI, wicd will probably support VPNs in version 2.x, informally called "VPB" (very pluggable backends) -- it should be easy to add new functionalities to wicd. But I haven't seen the code yet, so we'll have to wait until upstream releases it ;) Thanks for explaining your reasons, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
