Bug#1033274: gnome-session: recommends xdg-desktop-portal-gnome and not depends
I don't see other distributions (such as Fedora) having x-d-p-gnome as a dependency of gnome-session. Shouldn't the user be able to choose to have a minimal setup without the support for it? On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:59 AM Simon McVittie wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 10:32:23 +0100, Pablo Mazzini wrote: > > > Therefore, the desktop session needs to depend on the portal that has > the > > > best integration. > > > > Why does this dependency needs to be specified in the gnome-session > package? > > Wouldn't gnome-core be a better place to specify this? > > gnome-core is a somewhat complete GNOME session with various utilities > included (an image viewer, a calculator, software updates, a terminal...), > while gnome-session is the minimal GNOME session containing only the > necessary infrastructure to log in to a working GNOME interface. > Their scope is rather different. > > x-d-p-gnome is more like behind-the-scenes desktop environment plumbing > than a user-facing application: various applications will not work > correctly without it. It also isn't very large. Having a working portal > backend is becoming similar to having a working D-Bus session bus, > or a working fd.o Notifications interface, or a working X11 or Wayland > display, or a working sound server: something that apps assume, such > that the app can't work correctly without it. > > Let me turn this around: what is your use-case for installing > gnome-session but not x-d-p-gnome, such that logging into a minimal > GNOME session is possible, but applications that require a working portal > backend will not work correctly while logged into that session? > > smcv >
Bug#1033274: gnome-session: recommends xdg-desktop-portal-gnome and not depends
> Therefore, the desktop session needs to depend on the portal that has the best integration. Why does this dependency needs to be specified in the gnome-session package? Wouldn't gnome-core be a better place to specify this? > I am really struggling to see how the benefit of having one less package installed outweighs the harm caused by sandboxed apps being broken. I am not advocating to breaking sandboxed apps. I only wonder if gnome-session is not the right place for this dependency. On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:33 PM Jeremy Bícha wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 6:51 PM Pablo Mazzini wrote: > > gnome-session can work properly without xdg-desktop-portal-gnome. > > > > As per the policy: > > Depends: This declares an absolute dependency. > > Recommends: This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency. > > > > Please recommend xdg-desktop-portal-gnome. > > > > The gnome-core meta package already provides this dependency and it may > > be appropriate there. > > I am not convinced by your justification. Flatpak and Snap packages > are expected to work on Debian and require an xdg-desktop-portal > implementation. It is impossible for Flatpak (or Snap) alone to depend > on the correct portal implementation for each desktop. Therefore, the > desktop session needs to depend on the portal that has the best > integration. > > The Debian GNOME team has gotten bugs for years from people who > complain that their system doesn't work after disabling installing > recommended packages. Ironically, the fact that you are asking for > this change proves to me that there are people who intend to remove > recommended packages. > > I am really struggling to see how the benefit of having one less > package installed outweighs the harm caused by sandboxed apps being > broken. > > Thank you, > Jeremy Bícha >
Bug#1033274: gnome-session: recommends xdg-desktop-portal-gnome and not depends
Package: gnome-session Severity: normal gnome-session can work properly without xdg-desktop-portal-gnome. As per the policy: Depends: This declares an absolute dependency. Recommends: This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency. Please recommend xdg-desktop-portal-gnome. The gnome-core meta package already provides this dependency and it may be appropriate there.
Bug#667706: [pkg-wpa-devel] Bug#667706: openssl 1.0.1 breaks wpa_supplicant
Hi, I have tried using the wpa_supplicant 2.1 release and I can no longer reproduce this bug. I think it was fixed in the 2.0 one, this is a meaningful extract from the 2.0 changelog: * added mechanism to disable TLS Session Ticket extension - a workaround for servers that do not support TLS extensions that was enabled by default in recent OpenSSL versions - tls_disable_session_ticket=1 - automatically disable TLS Session Ticket extension by default when using EAP-TLS/PEAP/TTLS (i.e., only use it with EAP-FAST) Regards, Pablo Mazzini -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
