On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:00:33AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> > Is this a requirement for other network-providing packages as well? If
> > so, openvpn for instance is RC-buggy because upgrading it will restart
> > any configured VPNs. We don't require other packages t
]] Steve Langasek
> And by the way, if you're going to treat it as a serious bug, you'd better
> get filing other bugs for consistency. Just off the top of my head,
> base-passwd has had the same handling of /etc/passwd for *years* without
> anyone objecting. To me, this is very clearly a matte
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:35:49PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:18:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > (Furthermore, I think the whole idea of needing custom desktop
> > infrastructure to tell apps whether they're online or not is silly;
> > you're online if you have a
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:23:58PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > I think it's important that an upgrade of the NM package *also* not cause
> > the network to drop, but that's a slightly different point than the one I
> > was meaning to make.
> My question then still stands: Do you consider NM
]] Steve Langasek
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:50:37AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Steve Langasek
>
> > > - Installing the gnome or the NM package must not cause the network to
> > >break on upgrade, even temporarily, under any circumstances.
>
> > Is this a requirement for other
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:50:37AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Steve Langasek
> > - Installing the gnome or the NM package must not cause the network to
> >break on upgrade, even temporarily, under any circumstances.
> Is this a requirement for other network-providing packages as wel
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> Is this a requirement for other network-providing packages as well? If
> so, openvpn for instance is RC-buggy because upgrading it will restart
> any configured VPNs. We don't require other packages to continue to
> work uninterrupted during upgrades,
I think we actua
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:18:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> (Furthermore, I think the whole idea of needing custom desktop
> infrastructure to tell apps whether they're online or not is silly;
> you're online if you have a default route. [...]
I know that you put it in braces because it's no
]] Steve Langasek
> - Installing the gnome or the NM package must not cause the network to
>break on upgrade, even temporarily, under any circumstances.
Is this a requirement for other network-providing packages as well? If
so, openvpn for instance is RC-buggy because upgrading it will res
Hi Noel,
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 07:23:51PM +, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> My main concern when raising #681834 is that NM breaks my desktop system,
> not by breaking its network, but but rendering some of its applications
> unusable. This seems not to have been addressed yet.
> The exa
Don Armstrong writes:
> Ok, so this option C would involve not overriding the maintainer,
> coupled with requesting documentation in the release notes, and would
> also supplant 5 and 6 in the A and B versions.
Ah, yes, indeed, it would.
> I've gone ahead and updated the current don_draft.txt w
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > This is the current text of the options for #688772. I'd like to vote on
> > this before the 9th if at all possible. If anyone has any comments,
> > changes, or would like to propose different options, please do so now.
>
> Afte
Don Armstrong writes:
> This is the current text of the options for #688772. I'd like to vote on
> this before the 9th if at all possible. If anyone has any comments,
> changes, or would like to propose different options, please do so now.
After considering this and following the discussion, I'm
This is the current text of the options for #688772. I'd like to vote
on this before the 9th if at all possible. If anyone has any comments,
changes, or would like to propose different options, please do so now.
=== START ===
1. The TC notes the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to
implem
I've readjusted option B yet again, by adding an additional paragraph
which takes into account Ian's and Tollef's concerns. (git 6e42994)
B 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
Bdependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
Bshould be remove
Hi all
I do not know if you remember I am one of the interested parties on this,
since I raised #681834.
I'm very happy of reading such a comprehensive and rational statament from the
Gnome maintainers. I really appreciate it.
Please note that I am a (part time) Gnome user and want to continue
Hi,
* Jordi Mallach (jo...@debian.org) [121113 10:29]:
> [...]
First of all, thanks for your mail. I think it shows a good direction
to move on (though I'm not convinced that not running n-m is more
appropriate than not installing it, but well, YMMV.)
> NetworkManager and static interface confi
Jordi Mallach writes ("Re: Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> The Debian GNOME team is well aware of the discussion regarding
> #688772,
Thanks for your mail. (I have bounced it to the bug report - all
discussions on TC issues should be sent to the bug, rather
Hi,
The Debian GNOME team is well aware of the discussion regarding #688772, which
unfortunately went down an unconstructive path. As such we thought it best
to step back for a little bit to try and formulate our position more clearly
and see if we could find a constructive way to get out of this
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
> > shoul
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This for me is the critical point. Can _anyone_ provide a coherent
> > and fact-based explanation for why this is a good idea ?
>
> NM is appare
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This for me is the critical point. Can _anyone_ provide a coherent
> and fact-based explanation for why this is a good idea ?
NM is apparently required for various parts of gnome to figure out
whether it is online or offline. It's also necessary for the ne
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [121109 10:51]:
> There is no technical reason to prefer a situation where the user has
> n-m installed but disabled to one where they don't have it installed.
>
> There _are_ technical reasons why (on systems where n-m's operation
> is not desired)
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> B 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
> Bdependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
> Bshould be [-removed for the release of wheezy. After
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> That makes sense. I've adjusted it as follows, putting the RMs in the
> position of gatekeeper. I would be ok with changing that to a
> delegated member of the CTTE or someone else if the RMs didn&
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I'm thinking whether it might be helpful to put a reference to the
> discussion here, like "e.g. by preventing nm to start as discussed
> in #688772".
>
> Also, with my tech ctte member hat on, I don't think I mind to have
> the technical fixes applied p
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [121108 01:18]:
> Therefore
>
> A 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
> Adependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
> Ashould be removed for the release of wheezy.
>
> B 4. We overrule the decision of th
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Michael Biebl wrote:
> This would also help in situations where users install both wicd and
> network-manager by accident, which usually doesn't really work well
> since e.g. both spawn their own instance of wpa_supplicant.
>
> A more detailed reply will follow soon.
I h
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > One idea that came up was to check wether wicd is in use (or for
> > that matter ifupdown), and then show a debconf prompt explaining
> > the situation, and letting the user chose if he wants to take over
> >
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I've been discussing with jordi today about this issue.
Thanks for working on this.
> One idea that came up was to check wether wicd is in use (or for
> that matter ifupdown), and then show a debconf prompt explaining the
> situation, and letting the us
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Chris Knadle wrote:
> I think this effectively reduces down to checking if N-M is already
> installed and prompting if it's not.
That means that you would prompt on any new NM install, which means
yet another box that users have to click/press enter through. That's a
ton of ad
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 18:27:58, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On 25.10.2012 22:47, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Jeremy Bicha (jbi...@ubuntu.com) [121025 18:51]:
> >> On 25 October 2012 12:17, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >>> That said, if I'm wrong, and you believe that there is a compromise
> >>> which
On 25.10.2012 22:47, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Jeremy Bicha (jbi...@ubuntu.com) [121025 18:51]:
>> On 25 October 2012 12:17, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> That said, if I'm wrong, and you believe that there is a compromise
>>> which would resolve the concerns raised beyond those already presented
>>> (s
* Jeremy Bicha (jbi...@ubuntu.com) [121025 18:51]:
> On 25 October 2012 12:17, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > That said, if I'm wrong, and you believe that there is a compromise
> > which would resolve the concerns raised beyond those already presented
> > (status quo with/without release notes), now wo
Jeremy Bicha writes:
> - Why don't they complain about how GNOME3 is significantly different
> than what was shipped in previous Debian releases?
It's not the role of the TC to "complain". It's our role to resolve
issues that are brought to us for resolution.
> - Why don't they complain about
On 25 October 2012 12:17, Don Armstrong wrote:
> That said, if I'm wrong, and you believe that there is a compromise
> which would resolve the concerns raised beyond those already presented
> (status quo with/without release notes), now would be the time to
> present it.
My proposal is to:
1. Add
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I’m not the one who has violated the Constitution so far. The CTTE, on
> > the other hand, is currently acting in direct violation of Constitution
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 25 octobre 2012 à 00:13 +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> > On 13009 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > > In the current situation, I do not feel bound by any decisions the
> > > committee might make.
> >
> > You know, if it really
Hi,
Le jeudi 25 octobre 2012 à 00:13 +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> On 13009 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > In the current situation, I do not feel bound by any decisions the
> > committee might make.
>
> You know, if it really comes to one more CTTE decision around NM and
> Gnome,
On 13009 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> In the current situation, I do not feel bound by any decisions the
> committee might make.
You know, if it really comes to one more CTTE decision around NM and
Gnome, which you don't like - the above is a pretty clean resignation
from the project. Wh
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > AIUI the point of introducing wicd was to try to find some kind of
> > compromise. Given the response from the GNOME maintainers, I think
> >
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 th
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 23 octobre 2012 à 15:16 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > 2. Our intent, as stated in the rationale section of our previous
> >decision (#681834, paras 3 and 5), is that squeeze users who have
> >gnome installed but not network-manage
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Our very intent is that squeeze users who have gnome installed but not
> NM *do* find that NM becomes installed when they upgrade to wheezy.
Thank you for stating this so plainly.
>> 9. It is disappointing that this proposed solution to the problem was
>>not menti
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> Discussion seems to have stopped on this bug; I have drafted an
> additional set of options for discussion, both of which borrow
> liberally from ian's draft, and are presented below.
Thank
Josselin Mouette writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> Le mardi 23 octobre 2012 à 15:16 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > 2. Our intent, as stated in the rationale section of our previous
> >decision (#681834, paras 3 and 5), is that squeeze us
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 "
Let me comment on the proposals again.
Le mardi 23 octobre 2012 à 15:16 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> 2. Our intent, as stated in the rationale section of our previous
>decision (#681834, paras 3 and 5), is that squeeze users who have
>gnome installed but not network-manager do not find
Le mercredi 24 octobre 2012 à 09:57 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > This whole crusade by the ctte is so ridiculous, but unfortunately I
> > can't laugh about that anymore.
>
> Where is there a crusade? I don't see any.
Maybe you should remove that blindfold of yours?
> And btw, it doesn't
* Michael Biebl (bi...@debian.org) [121024 03:57]:
> 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 depen
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 p
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
ANd have an empty extra package that users can install if they really
want neither n-m or wicd?
While I don't get a vote, I think that would be a reasonable option if
yo
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This bug is to track this issue. Please send all discussion on this
> topic only to this bug report. I will make sure that the gnome
> maintainers are pointed to this bug report.
Discussion seems to have stopped on this bug; I have drafted an
additional se
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> That's the reason why I'm inclined to try to stay out of the decision as
> much as possible and leave it to the GNOME maintainers, who know
> considerably more about the system than I do.
Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
>> Whether or not one agrees with that reason, I do think it's cogent and
>> goes directly to the point, namely upgrade behavior.
> Do you think it's a good reas
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> Actually, Josselin did say, in one of his recent messages, the reason that
> I had hypothesized: that n-m is so much better that he's not sure that
> people who previously opted out of n-m stated
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 21:07 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>> For lack of a better synopsis, the argument there is "because recommends
>> do not behave properly across upgrades".
>
> And also, the purpose of metapackages is to ship dependencies.
Repeating
On Friday, October 12, 2012 14:38:07, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Why do you think the gnome metapackage depending on, rather than
> > &g
Ian Jackson writes:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
>> The primary case of NM breaking things is when it's installed with
>> wicd, AFAICT. The other cases of NM breaking things are RC bugs in NM.
> There are no other
Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 13:06 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> Continuing to attack Ian like this is not helpful. Please stop.
No, you please stop.
You should be glad there is one remaining GNOME maintainer willing to
talk about the crusade. Seeing Ian talk his usual crap is a good way to
r
Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 21:07 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> For lack of a better synopsis, the argument there is "because recommends
> do not behave properly across upgrades".
And also, the purpose of metapackages is to ship dependencies.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 19:51 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > > The simpler hypothesis is that there is no reason.
> >
> > I should expand on that, because it makes it sound like I think the
> > gnome maintainerss' behaviour is entirely inexpli
Le vendredi 12 octobre 2012 à 19:51 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > The simpler hypothesis is that there is no reason.
>
> I should expand on that, because it makes it sound like I think the
> gnome maintainerss' behaviour is entirely inexplicable.
Don’t worry, it just sounds like yourself.
-
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> To be fair, it seems to me that Joss has provided an additional answer
> to the "why recommends?" question in
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2012/09/msg00089.html
>
&
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 07:51:44PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> It seems to me that the gnome maintainers have a philosophical view
> that Network Manager is very strongly part of GNOME, and that they
> feel that this philosophical position can only be properly reflected
> by a hard dependency. Tha
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> > That's what I'm confused about too, but I'm assuming that there is
> > indeed a reas
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > I understand that the Gnome maintainers want N-M installed by default.
> > Except I think recommends gets you that.
>
> That's what I'm
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'm still confused why recommends doesn't work for everyone.
>
> I understand that the Gnome maintainers want N-M installed by default.
> Except I think recommends gets you that.
That's what I'm confused about too, but I'm assuming that there is
indeed a r
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Why do you think the gnome metapackage depending on, rather than
> > recommending, wicd, is a good idea?
>
> The primary case of NM breaking thi
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> > 1) we decide that failures of NM to detect basic ifupdown
> > configurations and avoid overriding them are bugs, possibly of RC
> > sever
On Friday, October 12, 2012 11:30:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jeremy Bicha writes:
> > Not to put more ideas in Ian's head about packaging decisions to
> > overrule, but nobody objects to gnome-core depending on gdm, which also
> > starts by default after installation unless you explicitly disable i
Jeremy Bicha writes:
> Not to put more ideas in Ian's head about packaging decisions to
> overrule, but nobody objects to gnome-core depending on gdm, which also
> starts by default after installation unless you explicitly disable it,
> and conflicts with several other display managers that are p
I'm still confused why recommends doesn't work for everyone.
I understand that the Gnome maintainers want N-M installed by default.
Except I think recommends gets you that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact li
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> > 1) we decide that failures of NM to detect basic ifupdown
> > configurations and avoid overriding them are bugs, possibly of RC
> > sever
On 12 October 2012 07:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
>> 1) we decide that failures of NM to detect basic ifupdown
>> configurations and avoid overriding them are bugs, possibly of RC
>> se
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Is there anyone who is unhappy with the draft below ?
>
> I personally don't support 8, 9 and 10.
Losing 9 and 10 is fine by me if that gets yo
Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> 1) we decide that failures of NM to detect basic ifupdown
> configurations and avoid overriding them are bugs, possibly of RC
> severity
>
> 2) given the gnome maintainer's desire to have
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 21:18:52, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > From what I understand, nm and wicd are not capable of
> > co-existing.[1] Furthermore, nm does not always catch that other
> > systems (such as ifupdown) are configuring the interfaces, an
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, Don Armstrong wrote:
> From what I understand, nm and wicd are not capable of
> co-existing.[1] Furthermore, nm does not always catch that other
> systems (such as ifupdown) are configuring the interfaces, and may
> lead to broken behavior on upgrade (such as #656584 and #68835
On Saturday, October 06, 2012 07:22:43, Chris Knadle wrote:
> On Friday, October 05, 2012 23:26:01, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> […]
>
> > > * The affirmation that this will cause undesirable upgrade behavior
> > >is grossly exaggerated.
> >
> > Fro
On Friday, October 05, 2012 23:26:01, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
[…]
> > * The affirmation that this will cause undesirable upgrade behavior
> >is grossly exaggerated.
>
> From what I understand, nm and wicd are not capable of co-existing.[1]
As it ha
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 22:07 -0600, Bdale Garbee a écrit :
> I personally believe that metapackages should be primarily populated
> with Recommends, with Depends largely reserved for actual technical
> dependencies between real packages.
This point is probably worth discussing because it c
Josselin Mouette writes:
> * The claim that NM can be replaced by another component without
> functionality loss is preposterous.
That's not what section 6 says. It says:
(ii) There is both demonstrable, intentional widespread replacement of
that package by Debian GNO
Josselin Mouette writes:
> * The reason for the historical Recommends instead of Depends is
> not mentioned, while this history is used as an excuse for the
> whole decision.
I personally believe that metapackages should be primarily populated
with Recommends, with Depends
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 16:46 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > So, besides the important goal of a complete gnome experience,
> > there's no other technical reason why NM must be installed?
>
> Why would there be?
If for example, network-man
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 16:46 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > The code that makes it actually *work* without NM installed was
> > added for kFreeBSD – incidentally, by the same NM maintainer whose
> > work has been repeatedly thrown into mud
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The code that makes it actually *work* without NM installed was
> added for kFreeBSD – incidentally, by the same NM maintainer whose
> work has been repeatedly thrown into mud in the discussions.
So, besides the important goal of a complete gnome expe
Hi Don,
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 11:36 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Recommends are not enough to ensure that packages are installed,
> > especially upon upgrades. For example regarding NM, we definitely
> > *want* people who upgrade from s
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >From the IRC meeting:
> > * ACTION: dondelelcaro to follow this up with the gnome maintainers to
> > get a clear argument from the GNOME maintainers about why this
> > *must* be a depends and not a recommends (dondelelcaro, 18:08:51)
>
> I don'
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Recommends are not enough to ensure that packages are installed,
> especially upon upgrades. For example regarding NM, we definitely
> *want* people who upgrade from squeeze to get NM installed.
What is still missing is the technical rationale for thi
>From the IRC meeting:
> * ACTION: dondelelcaro to follow this up with the gnome maintainers to
> get a clear argument from the GNOME maintainers about why this
> *must* be a depends and not a recommends (dondelelcaro, 18:08:51)
I don't know if this was followed up, but there still does
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends
Ian> network-manager-gnome"):
>> 6. We specifically forbid anyone from introducing in wheezy, or
>> in sid until wheezy is released: a. Any new or enhanced
>> dependencies, or any other mech
Jakub Wilk writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> According to the popcon data, 1812 out of 31630 the "gnome" metapackage
> users don't have the "network-manager" package installed.
Thank you. That's 5.73%. Quite a h
* Jakub Wilk , 2012-09-27, 13:28:
I actually somehow doubt, that there are a lot of squeeze users,
which have the whole gnome meta-package installed but decided to
remove NM.
Unfortunately popcon doesn't have this kind of correlation data.
It can be extracted from the raw popcon data (which i
Hi Stefano,
Le jeudi 27 septembre 2012 à 15:12 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> What worries me is the apparent lack of an important information: the
> greater goal/mission that the GNOME team have in mind. OTOH, the spirit
> of the recent tech-ctte decision can be summarized as: "allow use
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> In my last mail I referred several times to #688772 when I meant
> #640874. Sorry for the confusion. Here is a fixed copy:
I wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#688772: gnome Depen
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:40:25PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > But I'm not convinced that this is the right basis to think about it.
> > It is not a good precedent to set that if a matter is brought to the
> > TC, the maintainer who loses the debate i
In my last mail I referred several times to #688772 when I meant
#640874. Sorry for the confusion. Here is a fixed copy:
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome&quo
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome"):
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Having taken hold of the matter and overruled the maintainer, we have
> > a responsibility to see through the consequences, and to avoid
> >
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I would really appreciate, if the ctte could leave this case as it is
> > now and let us concentrate our efforts on fixing real issues and bugs
> > instead of having to spend our time writing several pages long emails
> > where we ne
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
