Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 NM installed by default from the gnome metapackage allowing gnome to Depends: nm | wicd; would deal with the most concerning form of breakage for me. Does this work for anyone else? Why do you think the gnome metapackage depending on, rather than recommending, wicd, is a good idea ? I don't really see the logical connection between any of the goals (whether the TC's or the GNOME maintainers') and your proposal. For example, consider the position of someone who has deliberately removed n-m in squeeze, and is using ifupdown or running ifconfig by hand or whatever, and upgrades to wheezy. This still gives them n-m back. That's not respecting their previous choice to remove it. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20599.65440.431113.256...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 your vote. [I'd do something like 8, but I believe it assumes too much bad faith on the part of the gnome maintainers.] Let me try to understand this position of yours more clearly: You agree that the things prohibited by 8 are bad. But you think the gnome maintainers would certainly not do them. Therefore spelling out that they are forbidden is unnecessary and offensive. So are you saying that we should leave off 8. But if the gnome maintainers do the bad things prohibted by 8, you would be happy to overrule them a third time ? I don't think that's wise but I'm willing to proceed on that basis if that's what gets us some progress on this issue now. No-one else has objected to my draft. I'm therefore considering proposing a vote; I would probably call for votes on two positive resolutions: A paras 1-7 of my previous draft gnome metapackage must not depend on n-m (3:1 required) B 1-8 of my previous draft as above, also prohibit backsliding (3:1 required) Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20600.568.542895.273...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
On 12 October 2012 07:31, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk 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 severity 2) given the gnome maintainer's desire to have NM installed by default from the gnome metapackage allowing gnome to Depends: nm | wicd; would deal with the most concerning form of breakage for me. Does this work for anyone else? Why do you think the gnome metapackage depending on, rather than recommending, wicd, is a good idea ? I don't really see the logical connection between any of the goals (whether the TC's or the GNOME maintainers') and your proposal. For example, consider the position of someone who has deliberately removed n-m in squeeze, and is using ifupdown or running ifconfig by hand or whatever, and upgrades to wheezy. This still gives them n-m back. That's not respecting their previous choice to remove it. The point I took away from Chris' post is that wicd does not integrate with GNOME Shell at all. There is only one networking solution that is supported with GNOME 3. 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 part of Debian. I consider a usable UI for setting up mobile networking (to include WiFi) to be a fundamental piece of any desktop, especially GNOME. I support Don's proposal to consider bugs where NM does not work right with basic ifupdown configs to be RC-severity. Jeremy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caaajcmzddazowmrqkcit9ec9uv-k1edo7mi3f9q_uuhc1yj...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 severity 2) given the gnome maintainer's desire to have NM installed by default from the gnome metapackage allowing gnome to Depends: nm | wicd; would deal with the most concerning form of breakage for me. Does this work for anyone else? Why do you think the gnome metapackage depending on, rather than recommending, wicd, is a good idea ? I don't really see the logical connection between any of the goals (whether the TC's or the GNOME maintainers') and your proposal. For example, consider the position of someone who has deliberately removed n-m in squeeze, and is using ifupdown or running ifconfig by hand or whatever, and upgrades to wheezy. This still gives them n-m back. That's not respecting their previous choice to remove it. The logic behind Don's proposition is that, if you're not using NM, then you're likely either using wicd or simple ifupdown config. That leaves two cases: 1/ Having wicd and nm active at the same time creates problems, so Don ensures that you can install either one of them and still have the gnome-core package installed (and still have nm by default if you don't make any specific choice). 2/ If you're an ifupdown user, then you can have nm installed even if it was not installed before hand, it won't hurt because NM ignores any interface listed in /etc/network/interfaces. Failing to comply with this rule are bugs that we could consider RC. In this situation, it seems that all parties would be satisfied (provided that the majority of persons who are not using NM are in fact using wicd or ifupdown). It looks like an acceptable outcome to me. Thank you Don for trying to find a third way out of this situation. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012133243.gg9...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 severity 2) given the gnome maintainer's desire to have NM installed by default from the gnome metapackage allowing gnome to Depends: nm | wicd; would deal with the most concerning form of breakage for me. Does this work for anyone else? Why do you think the gnome metapackage depending on, rather than recommending, wicd, is a good idea? 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. For example, consider the position of someone who has deliberately removed n-m in squeeze, and is using ifupdown or running ifconfig by hand or whatever, and upgrades to wheezy. This still gives them n-m back. That's not respecting their previous choice to remove it. Right, but if they get NM back, and nothing breaks because of it,[0] it's just the same as any other package being installed by a meta package. They've wasted some disk space, and they've got another program running, but everything continues to work. It's certainly not the way I would do it,[1] but it's one way to mitigate the problems with unconditionally installing NM while allowing a further insistence that NM be installed which the gnome maintainers appear to strongly believe is necessary. Don Armstrong 0: This requires some buy-in by the NM maintainer(s), though. 1: But then, I don't run gnome, nor do I care to help maintain it. -- As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. -- William O. Douglas http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012180512.gf7...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 reason why Recommends isn't enough, and the gnome meta package has to Depends: NM. [The questions I posed earlier still haven't been answered, unfortunately.] 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-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012184137.gh7...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 confused about too, but I'm assuming that there is indeed a reason why Recommends isn't enough, and the gnome meta package has to Depends: NM. [The questions I posed earlier still haven't been answered, unfortunately.] I think your assumption is incorrect. The gnome maintainers have written a great deal in these bug reports but have failed to come up with the reason you are looking for. The simpler hypothesis is that there is no reason. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20600.25988.303821.800...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 reason why Recommends isn't enough, and the gnome meta package has to Depends: NM. [The questions I posed earlier still haven't been answered, unfortunately.] ... 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. That's not what I mean. I should have said no good reason. 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. That is, that demoting the dependency to Recommends would be failing to properly give effect to the truth that N-M is part of GNOME. This seems to me to be the core of the opposition. Naturally I disagree that that's a good reason for having a Depends. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20600.26304.54903.586...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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. That is, that demoting the dependency to Recommends would be failing to properly give effect to the truth that N-M is part of 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 For lack of a better synopsis, the argument there is because recommends do not behave properly across upgrades. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 For lack of a better synopsis, the argument there is because recommends do not behave properly across upgrades. That's a reason not to use Recommends in metapackages everywhere (indeed, it's _the_ reason why metapackages shouldn't just all use Recommends). But in this specific case, it isn't a good reason, because the bug (failing to honour a newly-appearing Recommends) will not occur in the case of people upgrading from squeeze's gnome, because the squeeze's gnome package already had that recommends. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20600.27758.415028.479...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1350071715.8217.4.camel@tomoe
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 inexplicable. Don’t worry, it just sounds like yourself. Continuing to attack Ian like this is not helpful. Please stop. Don Armstrong -- UF: What's your favorite coffee blend? PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? If geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012200629.go7...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1350073354.8217.7.camel@tomoe
Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome
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 reduce this number further. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1350073704.8217.12.camel@tomoe
