Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> Actually, Josselin did say, in one of his recent messages, the reason that
> I had hypothesized: that n-m is so much better that he's not sure that
> people who previously opted out of n-m stated a preference that should
> apply to the current n-m.I did read that, and basically what it amounts to is this: N-M has improved enough that for a user who has deliberately decided to remove it, we should no longer respect that choice (as being no longer applicable to the current situation). Now I acknowledge that there might be cases where such a statement about a user's prior choice might be true. I think such situations will be very rare but it is possible that they might exist. However, we are not making this decision in the abstract. We are making it for n-m, specifically. And in the cases where a user has deliberately removed n-m they will have made other arrangements for their networking. Under those circumstances reinstalling n-m during the upgrade is certainly not helpful to the user; at best it does nothing useful because n-m does not disturb their existing setup. At worst it breaks something and forces the user to untangle the mess. > Whether or not one agrees with that reason, I do think it's cogent and > goes directly to the point, namely upgrade behavior. Do you think it's a good reason, in the case of n-m ? Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
