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 of the gnome maintainers here (ie if I
> were the one being overruled) I would be making exactly the same
> point.
The NM maintainer(s) aren't the same as the set of gnome maintainers,
though. [Even though there is some overlap and certainly communication
between them.]
> > 1. NM must not break an existing working networking configuration.
>
> Is this possible ? I mean, I worry that interpreted broadly ("_any_
> existing ...") this would simply mean that n-m should never do
> anything.
>
> Perhaps a better approach would be this, post-wheezy:
>
> While n-m remains a Depends of gnome or gnome-core, any bug report
> from a user that installing n-m broke their system's networking is
> to be treated by the gnome and network-manager maintainers as a
> valid, release-critical, bug.
>
> We should ask the n-m maintainer to comment on this proposal. If
> they think it's unworkable then that amounts to a statement that it
> will not be possible to reliably identify, and fix, all such
> problems.
Ok. I believe having Michael Biebl and/or the rest of the NM team
weigh in on this issue will be useful.
Don Armstrong
--
"For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none is possible."
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
