Tollef Fog Heen writes (Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends):
Ian Jackson :
It seems to me that our objectives must include:
[...]
3. Users who deliberately removed network-manager in squeeze (which
they will generally have done by deliberately violating the
How about this:
Whereas:
1. Our technical objectives are:
(i) Users who do not do anything special should get
network-manager along with gnome (in this case, along with
gnome-core). These users should continue to have
network-manager installed, across upgrades.
Julian Andres Klode writes (Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends
vs Depends):
I propose that you consider to have the gnome-core and gnome packages
moved to the metapackages section of the archive. This will cause
APT to mark the packages they depend on as manually installed,
]] Ian Jackson
Whereas:
1. Our technical objectives are:
These objectives and the anti-objectives further down seem a bit random
to me, written more to fit the end goal than actually showing what the
objectives are.
[...]
(ii) Users should be able to conveniently install and
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
2. Our technical objectives do NOT include:
[...]
(iii) Users who choose to globally disable Recommends should still
get the desired behaviours as described above in point 1.
This whole NOT part is very confusing to
]] Russ Allbery
Hi,
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
How about this:
This doesn't feel quite right to me, but I'm not sure how to phrase my
feeling in terms of specific objections. Let me try to instead draft the
sort of statement that I feel like I want to make
6 matches
Mail list logo
