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 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.
That's correct. I was hoping to find some kind of compromise that would satisfy the gnome maintainers' requirement to have NM installed by default whilst mitigating breakage. Since the option appears to have done neither, and I'm not particularly enamored with it either, I'm going to drop it. [If someone else feels strongly about having it on the ballot, please feel free to reintroduce it.] Don Armstrong -- But if, after all, we are on the wrong track, what then? Only disappointed human hopes, nothing more. And even if we perish, what will it matter in the endless cycles of eternity? -- Fridtjof Nansen _Farthest North_ p152 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
