Hi,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:00:37AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> * non-essential dependencies should be weakened to Recommends or Suggests
> to make the overall system more flexible;
> * users who change configuration should be able to rely on it not being
> lost
After thinking about
Quoting Simon McVittie (2019-08-16 11:00:37)
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 00:13:28 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Are you arguing that an installation where in-memory storage of
> > config is fine is perhaps not an "unusual installation" but a
> > "very super dooper weird installations" and
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, Simon McVittie wrote:
> If there *is* consensus that "don't lose user configuration" is less
> important than "weaken dependencies where possible", then that's a good
> reason to weaken the dependency, although in practice that is likely to
> be wontfix until
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 00:13:28 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Are you arguing that an installation where in-memory storage of config
> is fine is perhaps not an "unusual installation" but a "very super
> dooper weird installations" and therefore does not match Debian Policy
> about using
Quoting Simon McVittie (2019-08-15 20:55:04)
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 22:53:33 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Simon McVittie (2019-08-14 22:20:05)
> > > The preferences stored in this way are not vitally important, so
> > > perhaps it would be OK for them to just not be propagated
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 22:53:33 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Simon McVittie (2019-08-14 22:20:05)
> > The preferences stored in this way are not vitally important, so
> > perhaps it would be OK for them to just not be propagated outside the
> > application or stored after it exits
Quoting Simon McVittie (2019-08-14 22:20:05)
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 20:59:04 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > libgtk-3-0-common could even be relaxed to _suggest_ dconf/gconf
> > since already the applications using dconf/gconf declare a
> > dependency on those disk-based backends.
>
> The
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 20:59:04 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> libgtk-3-0-common could even be relaxed to _suggest_ dconf/gconf since
> already the applications using dconf/gconf declare a dependency on those
> disk-based backends.
The dependency is not because applications store
Quoting Simon McVittie (2019-08-14 20:22:33)
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 19:52:42 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Simon McVittie (2019-08-14 17:59:00)
> > > I think this is a bit of a lose/lose situation: if we downgrade
> > > the Depends to Recommends, as long as there is an (IMO unwise)
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:22:33PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Which point in the dependency chain do you think should be weakened from
> Depends to Recommends? I think the dependency from libgtk-3-0-common
> generated by dh_installgsettings is probably the most appropriate, or at
> least,
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 19:52:42 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Simon McVittie (2019-08-14 17:59:00)
> > I think this is a bit of a lose/lose situation: if we downgrade the
> > Depends to Recommends, as long as there is an (IMO unwise) meme that
> > globally disabling Recommends is the
Quoting Simon McVittie (2019-08-14 17:59:00)
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 14:24:26 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > The long term question remains though -- I dimly remember that we
> > once had the same discussion about a library pulling in rpcbind, and
> > that made a lot of people very unhappy at
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 14:24:26 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> The long term question remains though -- I dimly remember that we once had
> the same discussion about a library pulling in rpcbind, and that made a lot
> of people very unhappy at the time.
I think this is a bit of a lose/lose
13 matches
Mail list logo
