]] Russ Allbery
Hi,
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > How about this:
>
> This doesn't feel quite right to me, but I'm not sure how to phrase my
> feeling in terms of specific objections. Let me try to instead draft the
> sort of statement that I feel like I want to make and see what people
> thin
Ian Jackson writes:
> How about this:
This doesn't feel quite right to me, but I'm not sure how to phrase my
feeling in terms of specific objections. Let me try to instead draft the
sort of statement that I feel like I want to make and see what people
think of it.
The gnome-core metapackag
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> 2. Our technical objectives do NOT include:
[...]
> (iii) Users who choose to globally disable Recommends should still
> get the desired behaviours as described above in point 1.
This whole "NOT" part is very confusing
]] Ian Jackson
> Whereas:
>
> 1. Our technical objectives are:
These objectives and the anti-objectives further down seem a bit random
to me, written more to fit the end goal than actually showing what the
objectives are.
[...]
> (ii) Users should be able to conveniently install and u
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> Am I understanding you correctly in that your answer is «A Recommends
> can never be upgraded to a Depends for a metapackage»?
> (Essentially the same question as I asked beforehand, but where I've
> specified I'm only talking about metapackages.)
I think it depends on
]] Ian Jackson
> Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends
> vs Depends"):
> > Ian Jackson :
> > > It seems to me that our objectives must include:
> > [...]
> >
> > > 3. Users who deliberately removed network-manager in squeeze (which
> > >they will genera
Julian Andres Klode writes ("Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends
vs Depends"):
> I propose that you consider to have the gnome-core and gnome packages
> moved to the "metapackages" section of the archive. This will cause
> APT to mark the packages they depend on as manually installe
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:56:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> block 645656 by 681834
> thanks
>
> The argument about the dependency from gnome-core to network-manager
> has now reached the TC. This has been extensive discussed, most
> recently on debian-devel. The most recent response from Joss
How about this:
Whereas:
1. Our technical objectives are:
(i) Users who do not do anything special should get
network-manager along with gnome (in this case, along with
gnome-core). These users should continue to have
network-manager installed, across upgrades.
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Bug#681834: network-manager, gnome, Recommends vs
Depends"):
> Ian Jackson :
> > It seems to me that our objectives must include:
> [...]
>
> > 3. Users who deliberately removed network-manager in squeeze (which
> >they will generally have done by deliberately vio
10 matches
Mail list logo
