On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:00:33AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
Is this a requirement for other network-providing packages as well? If
so, openvpn for instance is RC-buggy because upgrading it will restart
any configured VPNs. We don't require other
Hi Noel,
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 07:23:51PM +, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
My main concern when raising #681834 is that NM breaks my desktop system,
not by breaking its network, but but rendering some of its applications
unusable. This seems not to have been addressed yet.
The
]] Steve Langasek
- Installing the gnome or the NM package must not cause the network to
break on upgrade, even temporarily, under any circumstances.
Is this a requirement for other network-providing packages as well? If
so, openvpn for instance is RC-buggy because upgrading it will
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:18:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
(Furthermore, I think the whole idea of needing custom desktop
infrastructure to tell apps whether they're online or not is silly;
you're online if you have a default route. [...]
I know that you put it in braces because it's not
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
Is this a requirement for other network-providing packages as well? If
so, openvpn for instance is RC-buggy because upgrading it will restart
any configured VPNs. We don't require other packages to continue to
work uninterrupted during upgrades,
I
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:50:37AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Steve Langasek
- Installing the gnome or the NM package must not cause the network to
break on upgrade, even temporarily, under any circumstances.
Is this a requirement for other network-providing packages as well?
]] Steve Langasek
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:50:37AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Steve Langasek
- Installing the gnome or the NM package must not cause the network to
break on upgrade, even temporarily, under any circumstances.
Is this a requirement for other
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:23:58PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
I think it's important that an upgrade of the NM package *also* not cause
the network to drop, but that's a slightly different point than the one I
was meaning to make.
My question then still stands: Do you consider NM in
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:35:49PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:18:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
(Furthermore, I think the whole idea of needing custom desktop
infrastructure to tell apps whether they're online or not is silly;
you're online if you have a
]] Steve Langasek
And by the way, if you're going to treat it as a serious bug, you'd better
get filing other bugs for consistency. Just off the top of my head,
base-passwd has had the same handling of /etc/passwd for *years* without
anyone objecting. To me, this is very clearly a matter
This is the current text of the options for #688772. I'd like to vote
on this before the 9th if at all possible. If anyone has any comments,
changes, or would like to propose different options, please do so now.
=== START ===
1. The TC notes the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
This is the current text of the options for #688772. I'd like to vote on
this before the 9th if at all possible. If anyone has any comments,
changes, or would like to propose different options, please do so now.
After considering this and following the
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
This is the current text of the options for #688772. I'd like to vote on
this before the 9th if at all possible. If anyone has any comments,
changes, or would like to propose different options, please do so now.
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Ok, so this option C would involve not overriding the maintainer,
coupled with requesting documentation in the release notes, and would
also supplant 5 and 6 in the A and B versions.
Ah, yes, indeed, it would.
I've gone ahead and updated the current
I've readjusted option B yet again, by adding an additional paragraph
which takes into account Ian's and Tollef's concerns. (git 6e42994)
B 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
Bdependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
Bshould be
Hi,
The Debian GNOME team is well aware of the discussion regarding #688772, which
unfortunately went down an unconstructive path. As such we thought it best
to step back for a little bit to try and formulate our position more clearly
and see if we could find a constructive way to get out of this
Jordi Mallach writes (Re: Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
The Debian GNOME team is well aware of the discussion regarding
#688772,
Thanks for your mail. (I have bounced it to the bug report - all
discussions on TC issues should be sent to the bug, rather than
directly
Hi,
* Jordi Mallach (jo...@debian.org) [121113 10:29]:
[...]
First of all, thanks for your mail. I think it shows a good direction
to move on (though I'm not convinced that not running n-m is more
appropriate than not installing it, but well, YMMV.)
NetworkManager and static interface
Hi all
I do not know if you remember I am one of the interested parties on this,
since I raised #681834.
I'm very happy of reading such a comprehensive and rational statament from the
Gnome maintainers. I really appreciate it.
Please note that I am a (part time) Gnome user and want to
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
That makes sense. I've adjusted it as follows, putting the RMs in the
position of gatekeeper. I would be ok with changing that to a
delegated member of the CTTE or someone else if the RMs didn't want to
be the final
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
B 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
Bdependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
Bshould be [-removed for the release of wheezy. After the release of
Bwheezy
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [121109 10:51]:
There is no technical reason to prefer a situation where the user has
n-m installed but disabled to one where they don't have it installed.
There _are_ technical reasons why (on systems where n-m's operation
is not desired) not
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
This for me is the critical point. Can _anyone_ provide a coherent
and fact-based explanation for why this is a good idea ?
NM is apparently required for various parts of gnome to figure out
whether it is online or offline. It's also necessary for the
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
This for me is the critical point. Can _anyone_ provide a coherent
and fact-based explanation for why this is a good idea ?
NM is apparently required for various parts of gnome
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
This is only the case if we are convinced the NM maintainer(s) are
acting in bad faith. While that's certainly a possibility, we
shouldn't assume it.
If I were in the position
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [121108 01:18]:
Therefore
A 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
Adependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
Ashould be removed for the release of wheezy.
B 4. We overrule the decision of the
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012, Andreas Barth wrote:
I'm thinking whether it might be helpful to put a reference to the
discussion here, like e.g. by preventing nm to start as discussed
in #688772.
Also, with my tech ctte member hat on, I don't think I mind to have
the technical fixes applied
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Michael Biebl wrote:
One idea that came up was to check wether wicd is in use (or for
that matter ifupdown), and then show a debconf prompt explaining
the situation, and letting the user chose if he wants to take over
network
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Michael Biebl wrote:
This would also help in situations where users install both wicd and
network-manager by accident, which usually doesn't really work well
since e.g. both spawn their own instance of wpa_supplicant.
A more detailed reply will follow soon.
I
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Michael Biebl wrote:
I've been discussing with jordi today about this issue.
Thanks for working on this.
One idea that came up was to check wether wicd is in use (or for
that matter ifupdown), and then show a debconf prompt explaining the
situation, and letting the user
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 18:27:58, Michael Biebl wrote:
On 25.10.2012 22:47, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Jeremy Bicha (jbi...@ubuntu.com) [121025 18:51]:
On 25 October 2012 12:17, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
That said, if I'm wrong, and you believe that there is a compromise
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Chris Knadle wrote:
I think this effectively reduces down to checking if N-M is already
installed and prompting if it's not.
That means that you would prompt on any new NM install, which means
yet another box that users have to click/press enter through. That's a
ton of
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 25 octobre 2012 à 00:13 +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
On 13009 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
In the current situation, I do not feel bound by any decisions the
committee might make.
You know, if it really comes to one
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I’m not the one who has violated the Constitution so far. The CTTE, on
the other hand, is currently acting in direct violation of Constitution
§6.3.6. No discussion was ever
On 25 October 2012 12:17, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
That said, if I'm wrong, and you believe that there is a compromise
which would resolve the concerns raised beyond those already presented
(status quo with/without release notes), now would be the time to
present it.
My proposal
Jeremy Bicha jbi...@ubuntu.com writes:
- Why don't they complain about how GNOME3 is significantly different
than what was shipped in previous Debian releases?
It's not the role of the TC to complain. It's our role to resolve
issues that are brought to us for resolution.
- Why don't they
* Jeremy Bicha (jbi...@ubuntu.com) [121025 18:51]:
On 25 October 2012 12:17, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
That said, if I'm wrong, and you believe that there is a compromise
which would resolve the concerns raised beyond those already presented
(status quo with/without release
On 25.10.2012 22:47, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Jeremy Bicha (jbi...@ubuntu.com) [121025 18:51]:
On 25 October 2012 12:17, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
That said, if I'm wrong, and you believe that there is a compromise
which would resolve the concerns raised beyond those already presented
Hi,
Le jeudi 25 octobre 2012 à 00:13 +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
On 13009 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
In the current situation, I do not feel bound by any decisions the
committee might make.
You know, if it really comes to one more CTTE decision around NM and
Gnome, which
* Michael Biebl (bi...@debian.org) [121024 03:57]:
On 24.10.2012 03:29, Sam Hartman wrote:
Don, in your option 4B, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have the
depend be something like g-n-m|wicd|no-network-manager
The gnome meta-package certainly won't get an alternative dependency
Le mercredi 24 octobre 2012 à 09:57 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
This whole crusade by the ctte is so ridiculous, but unfortunately I
can't laugh about that anymore.
Where is there a crusade? I don't see any.
Maybe you should remove that blindfold of yours?
And btw, it doesn't help
Let me comment on the proposals again.
Le mardi 23 octobre 2012 à 15:16 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
2. Our intent, as stated in the rationale section of our previous
decision (#681834, paras 3 and 5), is that squeeze users who have
gnome installed but not network-manager do not find
Michael Biebl writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On 24.10.2012 03:29, Sam Hartman wrote:
Don, in your option 4B, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have the
depend be something like g-n-m|wicd|no-network-manager
The gnome meta-package certainly won't get
Josselin Mouette writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
Le mardi 23 octobre 2012 à 15:16 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
2. Our intent, as stated in the rationale section of our previous
decision (#681834, paras 3 and 5), is that squeeze users who have
gnome
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
Discussion seems to have stopped on this bug; I have drafted an
additional set of options for discussion, both of which borrow
liberally from ian's draft, and are presented below.
Thanks.
I'd like to either reconcile
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Our very intent is that squeeze users who have gnome installed but not
NM *do* find that NM becomes installed when they upgrade to wheezy.
Thank you for stating this so plainly.
9. It is disappointing that this proposed solution to the problem was
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 23 octobre 2012 à 15:16 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
2. Our intent, as stated in the rationale section of our previous
decision (#681834, paras 3 and 5), is that squeeze users who have
gnome installed but not network-manager do
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
Shockingly, I find myself in agreement with at least some of the
views of the GNOME maintainers. As I have said, I don't think this
proposed dependency on wicd makes any kind of sense. It achieves
neither the objectives of the GNOME maintainers nor the
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
AIUI the point of introducing wicd was to try to find some kind of
compromise. Given the response from the GNOME maintainers, I think
it is a bad idea.
That's correct. I
On 13009 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
In the current situation, I do not feel bound by any decisions the
committee might make.
You know, if it really comes to one more CTTE decision around NM and
Gnome, which you don't like - the above is a pretty clean resignation
from the project.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
This bug is to track this issue. Please send all discussion on this
topic only to this bug report. I will make sure that the gnome
maintainers are pointed to this bug report.
Discussion seems to have stopped on this bug; I have drafted an
additional set
Don, in your option 4B, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have the
depend be something like g-n-m|wicd|no-network-manager
ANd have an empty extra package that users can install if they really
want neither n-m or wicd?
While I don't get a vote, I think that would be a reasonable option if
On 24.10.2012 03:29, Sam Hartman wrote:
Don, in your option 4B, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have the
depend be something like g-n-m|wicd|no-network-manager
The gnome meta-package certainly won't get an alternative dependency
on wicd. That would be completely stupid and miss the
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
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
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
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
That's the reason why I'm inclined to try to stay out of the decision as
much as possible and leave it to the GNOME maintainers, who know
considerably more about the system than I do.
One might as well say that we should
On Friday, October 12, 2012 14:38:07, Ian Jackson wrote:
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
Why do you think the gnome metapackage depending on, rather than
recommending, wicd, is a good idea?
The primary
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 21:07 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
For lack of a better synopsis, the argument there is because recommends
do not behave properly across upgrades.
And also, the purpose of metapackages is to ship dependencies.
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
1) we decide that failures of NM to detect basic ifupdown
configurations and avoid overriding them are bugs, possibly of RC
severity
2) given the gnome maintainer's desire to have NM installed by default
from the gnome
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
Is there anyone who is unhappy with the draft below ?
I personally don't support 8, 9 and 10.
Losing 9 and 10 is fine by me if that gets your vote.
[I'd do something like 8
On 12 October 2012 07:31, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
1) we decide that failures of NM to detect basic ifupdown
configurations and avoid overriding them are bugs, possibly of RC
severity
2) given
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
1) we decide that failures of NM to detect basic ifupdown
configurations and avoid overriding them are bugs, possibly of RC
severity
2) given the gnome maintainer's desire
I'm still confused why recommends doesn't work for everyone.
I understand that the Gnome maintainers want N-M installed by default.
Except I think recommends gets you that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Jeremy Bicha jbi...@ubuntu.com writes:
Not to put more ideas in Ian's head about packaging decisions to
overrule, but nobody objects to gnome-core depending on gdm, which also
starts by default after installation unless you explicitly disable it,
and conflicts with several other display
On Friday, October 12, 2012 11:30:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jeremy Bicha jbi...@ubuntu.com writes:
Not to put more ideas in Ian's head about packaging decisions to
overrule, but nobody objects to gnome-core depending on gdm, which also
starts by default after installation unless you
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
1) we decide that failures of NM to detect basic ifupdown
configurations and avoid overriding them are bugs, possibly of RC
severity
2) given the gnome maintainer's desire
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
Why do you think the gnome metapackage depending on, rather than
recommending, wicd, is a good idea?
The primary case of NM breaking things is when it's installed with
wicd
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'm still confused why recommends doesn't work for everyone.
I understand that the Gnome maintainers want N-M installed by default.
Except I think recommends gets you that.
That's what I'm confused about too, but I'm assuming that there is
indeed a
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Sam Hartman wrote:
I understand that the Gnome maintainers want N-M installed by default.
Except I think recommends gets you that.
That's what I'm confused about too, but I'm assuming
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
That's what I'm confused about too, but I'm assuming that there is
indeed a reason why Recommends isn't enough, and the gnome meta
package has
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 07:51:44PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
It seems to me that the gnome maintainers have a philosophical view
that Network Manager is very strongly part of GNOME, and that they
feel that this philosophical position can only be properly reflected
by a hard dependency. That
Stefano Zacchiroli writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
To be fair, it seems to me that Joss has provided an additional answer
to the why recommends? question in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/09/msg00089.html
For lack of a better synopsis, the argument
Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 19:51 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
The simpler hypothesis is that there is no reason.
I should expand on that, because it makes it sound like I think the
gnome maintainerss' behaviour is entirely inexplicable.
Don’t worry, it just sounds like yourself.
--
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 19:51 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
The simpler hypothesis is that there is no reason.
I should expand on that, because it makes it sound like I think the
gnome maintainerss' behaviour is entirely inexplicable.
Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 21:07 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
For lack of a better synopsis, the argument there is because recommends
do not behave properly across upgrades.
And also, the purpose of metapackages is to ship dependencies.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 13:06 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
Continuing to attack Ian like this is not helpful. Please stop.
No, you please stop.
You should be glad there is one remaining GNOME maintainer willing to
talk about the crusade. Seeing Ian talk his usual crap is a good way to
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
The primary case of NM breaking things is when it's installed with
wicd, AFAICT. The other cases of NM breaking things are RC bugs in NM.
There are no other competitors
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 21:18:52, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, Don Armstrong wrote:
From what I understand, nm and wicd are not capable of
co-existing.[1] Furthermore, nm does not always catch that other
systems (such as ifupdown) are configuring the interfaces, and may
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, Don Armstrong wrote:
From what I understand, nm and wicd are not capable of
co-existing.[1] Furthermore, nm does not always catch that other
systems (such as ifupdown) are configuring the interfaces, and may
lead to broken behavior on upgrade (such as #656584 and #688355,
On Saturday, October 06, 2012 07:22:43, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Friday, October 05, 2012 23:26:01, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
[…]
* The affirmation that this will cause undesirable upgrade behavior
is grossly exaggerated.
From what I
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 22:07 -0600, Bdale Garbee a écrit :
I personally believe that metapackages should be primarily populated
with Recommends, with Depends largely reserved for actual technical
dependencies between real packages.
This point is probably worth discussing because it
On Friday, October 05, 2012 23:26:01, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
[…]
* The affirmation that this will cause undesirable upgrade behavior
is grossly exaggerated.
From what I understand, nm and wicd are not capable of co-existing.[1]
As it has been
From the IRC meeting:
* ACTION: dondelelcaro to follow this up with the gnome maintainers to
get a clear argument from the GNOME maintainers about why this
*must* be a depends and not a recommends (dondelelcaro, 18:08:51)
I don't know if this was followed up, but there still doesn't
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Recommends are not enough to ensure that packages are installed,
especially upon upgrades. For example regarding NM, we definitely
*want* people who upgrade from squeeze to get NM installed.
What is still missing is the technical rationale for this
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
From the IRC meeting:
* ACTION: dondelelcaro to follow this up with the gnome maintainers to
get a clear argument from the GNOME maintainers about why this
*must* be a depends and not a recommends (dondelelcaro, 18:08:51)
I don't know if
Hi Don,
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 11:36 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Recommends are not enough to ensure that packages are installed,
especially upon upgrades. For example regarding NM, we definitely
*want* people who upgrade from squeeze
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
The code that makes it actually *work* without NM installed was
added for kFreeBSD – incidentally, by the same NM maintainer whose
work has been repeatedly thrown into mud in the discussions.
So, besides the important goal of a complete gnome
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 16:46 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
The code that makes it actually *work* without NM installed was
added for kFreeBSD – incidentally, by the same NM maintainer whose
work has been repeatedly thrown into mud in the
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 16:46 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
So, besides the important goal of a complete gnome experience,
there's no other technical reason why NM must be installed?
Why would there be?
If for example, network-manager
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
* The reason for the historical Recommends instead of Depends is
not mentioned, while this history is used as an excuse for the
whole decision.
I personally believe that metapackages should be primarily populated
with Recommends,
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
* The claim that NM can be replaced by another component without
functionality loss is preposterous.
That's not what section 6 says. It says:
(ii) There is both demonstrable, intentional widespread replacement of
that package
Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ian Ian Jackson writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends
Ian network-manager-gnome):
6. We specifically forbid anyone from introducing in wheezy, or
in sid until wheezy is released: a. Any new or enhanced
dependencies, or
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:27:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
We still have the upgrade problem with network-manager from squeeze gnome
to wheezy gnome, but I would expect, if I had the full gnome metapackage
installed, for quite a lot to potentially change across versions: new
applications
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 03:01:23AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
What you are proposing is a compromise between doing the right thing
for our users, and upholding the autonomy of the maintainer.
Changing the Depends to Recommends was never the right solution to the
real
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:25:53PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
10. We therefore formally reprimand Josselin Mouette. We consider his
behaviour deliberately obstructive and obtuse.
Is that really necessary?
I mean, if this new resolution gets approved, wouldn't the
* Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org, 2012-09-27, 12:01:
I actually somehow doubt, that there are a lot of squeeze users, which
have the whole gnome meta-package installed but decided to remove NM.
Unfortunately popcon doesn't have this kind of correlation data.
It can be extracted from the raw
Hi,
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
But I'm not convinced that this is the right basis to think about it.
It is not a good precedent to set that if a matter is brought to the
TC, the maintainer who loses the debate in the TC will do something
which undermines the effect of the TC
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I would really appreciate, if the ctte could leave this case as it is
now and let us concentrate our efforts on fixing real issues and bugs
instead of having to spend our time writing several pages long emails
where we need to
Raphael Hertzog writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
Having taken hold of the matter and overruled the maintainer, we have
a responsibility to see through the consequences, and to avoid
backsliding by the maintainer.
http
In my last mail I referred several times to #688772 when I meant
#640874. Sorry for the confusion. Here is a fixed copy:
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
Raphael Hertzog writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome):
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
