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 an alternative dependency
> on wicd. That would be completely stupid and miss the point of this
> dependency. The GNOME desktop has zero integration with wicd, so this
> alternative dependency is completely backwards.
> Why don't you force a dependency on ifupdown on us, or ifplugd or whatever.
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 objectives of users who
have chosen to remove n-m.
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.
Of course, Don, you're still entitled to put it on the ballot. And to
be honest if it's there I would still vote for it over FD as it does
assist some of the affected users. But really I think it's just
introducing confusion (or, indeed, is itself the result of confusion)
and it should be dropped.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
