On Sat 06 Apr 2019 at 08:42:31 (+0100), Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:39:23PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > "Why not make a [Conflicts:] with Wayland / Gnome? It's not > > possible to make sure that synaptic installs on a [Conflicts:] > > that would remove Wayland?" > > > > This is probably the easiest option to support as it should be > > possible to implement just by adding a line to the two Packages > > files for the architectures affected. > > This is not a proper use of Conflicts:. > > Xorg and Wayland stuff can be installed side-by-side. Synaptic works fine on > Gnome/Xorg. A conflicts: against Gnome would be nonsensical; a conflicts: > against Wayland would prevent installing Wayland on a system that has Synaptic > already, even if there was no intention to use them together; or prevent > Synaptic installing on a system with Wayland present, even if it wasn't in > use.
I think you're right, so perhaps NEWS.Debian is the way to go. > > Given a straight toss-up though, I think synaptic has to give way because > > there are plenty of alternatives. I'd never heard of it until a few people > > started mentioning it here, and I'd never consider using it myself on X > > except > > as an ordinary user. > > The severity of the bug in synaptic (which is what has caused its autoremoval) > would not be "serious" if the default desktop was not Wayland. So changing > *that*, would mean synaptic could be reintroduced. So Debian should have its policy dictated by bugs in an unrelated package. Seems an odd strategy. Cheers, David.