Re: solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem (was Re: Re: duplicates in the archive)

2012-07-18 Thread Fabian Greffrath
Recommends is wrong for metapackages because it gets upgrades very wrong. This is why it is used very marginally. Couldn't this get fixed if Depends: network-manager-gnome (= 0.9.4) was replaced with Recommends: network-manager-gnome Breaks: network-manager-gnome ( 0.9.4) -- To

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-18 Thread Ian Jackson
Josselin Mouette writes (Re: duplicates in the archive): Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit : What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly match the makes life easier for common but not universal use-case XXX scenario you describe

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-18 Thread Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson writes (Re: duplicates in the archive): Josselin Mouette writes (Re: duplicates in the archive): Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit : What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly match the makes life easier for common

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-10 Thread Miles Bader
Félix Arreola Rodríguez fgatuno@gmail.com writes: But, ignoring the a desktop works fine without n-m thing, n-m makes more, much more easy connecting to wifi networks, espeacially for laptops. I suggest make Laptop task depend on n-m, in this way, n-m don't get installed on desktop

Re: N-M: Depends-Recommends (was: Re: duplicates in the archive)

2012-07-10 Thread Jon Dowland
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:16PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: and also, as Philipp Kern noticed before, things that use N-M to distinguish between online and offline modes will think they're offline after uninstalling N-M until they are restarted. You get this even with n-m installed, if n-m

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-10 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit : What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly match the makes life easier for common but not universal use-case XXX scenario you describe. Recommends is wrong for metapackages because it gets upgrades very

Recommends for metapackages (was: Re: duplicates in the archive)

2012-07-10 Thread Eugene V. Lyubimkin
[ dropping 542095@ ] Hi, On 2012-07-10 15:32, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit : What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly match the makes life easier for common but not universal use-case XXX scenario you

Re: N-M: Depends-Recommends (was: Re: duplicates in the archive)

2012-07-10 Thread Abou Al Montacir
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 09:47 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:16PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: and also, as Philipp Kern noticed before, things that use N-M to distinguish between online and offline modes will think they're offline after uninstalling N-M until they

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-10 Thread Adam Borowski
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:32:43PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit : What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly match the makes life easier for common but not universal use-case XXX scenario you describe.

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-09 Thread Ian Jackson
Adam Borowski writes (Re: duplicates in the archive): Breaks unrelated software on the system is a RC severity, and there's no way one can say a windowing environment is related to core networking. Thus, I'd say, #542095 needs to be upgraded -- and changing Depends: to Recommends: is a non

Re: N-M: Depends-Recommends (was: Re: duplicates in the archive)

2012-07-09 Thread Adam Borowski
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:46:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Adam Borowski writes (Re: duplicates in the archive): Breaks unrelated software on the system is a RC severity, and there's no way one can say a windowing environment is related to core networking. Thus, I'd say, #542095 needs

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-09 Thread Félix Arreola Rodríguez
El lun, 09-07-2012 a las 19:46 +0100, Ian Jackson escribió: Adam Borowski writes (Re: duplicates in the archive): Breaks unrelated software on the system is a RC severity, and there's no way one can say a windowing environment is related to core networking. Thus, I'd say, #542095 needs

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-08 Thread Adam Borowski
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been using it quite successfully without nm installed. Have you tried to use evolution without

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-08 Thread Adam Borowski
WHOOPS, SORRY. Meant to delete this old draft, not send it. The issue is valid, but sorry for incomplete mail. On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 04:48:01PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante Signell

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-07-08 Thread Noel David Torres Taño
WHOOPS, SORRY. Meant to delete this old draft, not send it. The issue is valid, but sorry for incomplete mail. On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 04:48:01PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-27 Thread Philipp Kern
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been using it quite successfully without nm installed. Have you tried to use evolution without NM? I didn't try but it only suggests network-manager. However some

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-25 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl kirjoitti: Sure, let's start removals with ones that hard-depend on things a window manager shouldn't touch, like network-manager. Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been using it quite successfully without nm installed. (I

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-25 Thread Bart Martens
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:18:00PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:48:43 + Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit : What makes 42 window

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-25 Thread Russ Allbery
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes: Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive. I think it's hard to defend the contention that the quantity of packages has some strong relationship to whether

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-25 Thread Bart Martens
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:36:13PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:42:33 +0200 Arno Töll a...@debian.org wrote: On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote: Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of packages which already have multiple duplicates

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-25 Thread Andrew Shadura
Hello, On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:36:13 +0100 Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote: If it can be justified. That's what the objective comparison would need to demonstrate. That's an established pattern in Debian - if someone wants to add something which is the same as something else, there

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-25 Thread Svante Signell
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 08:19 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl kirjoitti: Sure, let's start removals with ones that hard-depend on things a window manager shouldn't touch, like network-manager. Yes, why not! Which wm does that? I know it isn't

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-25 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] Neil Williams Popcon indicates almost nothing - least of all popularity. The weaknesses of popcon for archive-related questions is well documented. It might give a hint but it is *not* a reliable indicator. While it's not perfect, I'm not aware of any better tool we have. Relying on

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-25 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
Svante Signell svante.sign...@telia.com kirjoitti: On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 08:19 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been using it quite successfully without nm installed. Have you tried to use evolution without NM? Evolution

duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Neil Williams
, there is no place for yet another duplicate of packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive. There isn't even any point waiting for such packages to get RC bugs to be able to remove them. Stop them getting in in the first place. -- Neil Williams = http

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Wookey
+++ Neil Williams [2012-06-24 18:51 +0100]: On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:31:12 +0200 Arno Töll a...@debian.org wrote: Dropping the bug CC. On 24.06.2012 19:15, Neil Williams wrote: This bug is *not* useful to anyone. Please close it and find an RC bug to close instead. I'm pretty

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Arno Töll
Hi, On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote: Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive. Letting alone the package in particular (I don't even know it, nor do I care), I wonder where you'd draw that line

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Bart Martens
, feel free to file a bug against the Developer Reference. Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive. There isn't even any point waiting for such packages to get RC bugs to be able to remove them. Stop them

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Neil Williams
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:42:33 +0200 Arno Töll a...@debian.org wrote: On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote: Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive. Letting alone the package in particular (I don't

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Neil Williams
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:45:54 + Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: About allowing new packages in Debian in general : On the one hand you have a point that Debian should not collect any free software, but on the other hand I think that it is OK to have multiple implementations of the

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit : What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43? Who said 42 is acceptable? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe.

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Bart Martens
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:48:48PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:45:54 + Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: About allowing new packages in Debian in general : On the one hand you have a point that Debian should not collect any free software, but on the other

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Bart Martens
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit : What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43? Who said 42 is acceptable? The neglected ones should be removed. If they're all well maintained and all used,

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Neil Williams
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:48:43 + Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit : What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43? Who said 42 is acceptable? The

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Neil Williams
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:46:55 + Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote: The maintainer has to make that judgement, it's just one of the things maintainers have to do. popcon is no indicator here, it is about whether there is a bug in Debian, independent of this package. Not only the

Re: duplicates in the archive

2012-06-24 Thread Adam Borowski
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit : What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43? Who said 42 is acceptable? Sure, let's start removals with ones that hard-depend on things a window manager