Please keep the bug on CC: when replying. On ven., 2011-11-18 at 00:17 +0000, Clea F. Rees wrote: > On 17 November 2011 06:24, Yves-Alexis Perez <cor...@debian.org> wrote: > > On jeu., 2011-11-17 at 00:30 +0000, cfr wrote: > >> Package: xfce4-notifyd > >> Version: 0.2.2-1 > >> Severity: normal > >> > >> > >> xfce4-notifyd provides notification-daemon but other packages which > >> depend on notification-daemon don't accept xfce4-notifyd as sufficient. > >> For example, update-notifier, gnome-core etc. > > > > What exactly do you mean by that? What is missing which makes them “not > > accept”? How does this manifests itself? > > It isn't possible to uninstall notification-daemon even though > xfce4-notifyd is installed. If notification-daemon was a virtual > package this would be fine but it is not. So I could get rid of > xfce4-notifyd but I can't have just xfce4-notifyd if I want to keep > packages which list notification-daemon as a dependency. > > >> So these packages have insisted on installing notification-daemon as > >> well and will not allow it to be uninstalled even though xfce4-notifyd > >> is installed. > > > > What do you mean? If they depend on notification-daemon, they should be > > pleased with xfce4-notifyd because of the Provides:. So what exactly do > > you mean by “will not allow”? > > See above. (I hope I've made it clearer but I'm not sure.) > > >> As a result, it seems to be a matter of chance which > >> notification daemon I get on start up. > > > > Yes, but that's pretty much unrelated. There's no way to determine which > > service will be picked up, unfortunately, that's why some desktop > > environment dropped dbus activation for some services. > > > >> Sometimes I get one, sometimes > >> the other. I realise I could get rid of xfce4-notifyd but I much prefer > >> it. Also, everything worked perfectly with xfce4-notifyd until a few > >> days ago. > > > > Do you remember what happened, “few days ago”? Some upgrade? And what is > > the current situation, you didn't exactly explained what was not > > “working perfectly”. > > I'm pretty much tracking testing so I'm assuming that something > upgraded in testing changed things. There were certainly changes for > some gnome packages and some xfce packages, for example. > > By "working perfectly", I mean that I had xfce4-notifyd installed and > only xfce4-notifyd installed as well as having update-notifier, > gnome-core etc. installed. (And xfce4-notifyd displayed notifications > as expected and was configurable through xfce4's settings > application.)
Could you paste exactly what you're trying to do and what fails? Please provide as much information as you can (best when you first report the bug, btw, I don't have that much time and digging up every piece of information is really time consuming). Here I do have xfce4-notifyd without notification-daemon so something in your install differs, but I don't have a crystal ball. > > >> I am sorry but I do not understand Debian's packaging system well enough > >> to know whether this is really a bug in this package, > >> notification-daemon or the packages which depend in turn on > >> notification-daemon. > >> > >> I thought maybe I needed to configure an alternative or something but > >> nothing seems to cover notification daemons and I can't find anything > >> through configure-debian either, although I'm sure there must be a way > >> if I look in just the right place... > > > > Yup, no alternative. > >> > >> The Debian changelog notes that xfce4-notifyd no longer conficts with > >> notification-daemon. Frankly, things worked a lot better when it did! > > > > Indeed, but people might want to have both installed on purpose. > > OK. But it should be possible to have just xfce4-notifyd installed on > purpose, too, and the package management system will no longer allow > that. I now have to have notification-daemon (as in the package rather > than just the name provided by xfce4-notifyd) installed as well. And > that makes notifications unpredictable because I cannot control which > daemon will happen to start up first. > > My only point about the alternative was that the practical upshot > would be less problematic if notification daemon was covered by the > alternatives system. In that case, I could ensure xfce4-notifyd always > started even if I was also forced to have notification-daemon > installed as well. It is the fact that I have to either give up > xfce4-notifyd or have both installed and that there is no way to > select which will be used that is problematic. Note that alternatives have their set of problems too, and especially managing the priority. > > Any clearer? Yes and no :) Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
