Ian Jackson writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> > Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> > > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfe
Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly
> > match the "makes life easier for > XXX>" scena
Recommends is wrong for metapackages because it gets upgrades very
wrong. This is why it is used very marginally.
Couldn't this get fixed if
Depends: network-manager-gnome (>= 0.9.4)
was replaced with
Recommends: network-manager-gnome
Breaks: network-manager-gnome (<< 0.9.4)
--
To UNSUBS
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:32:43PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly
> > match the "makes life easier for > XXX>" scenario you describe.
>
> Recommends is wrong for
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 09:47 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:16PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > and also, as Philipp Kern noticed before, things that use N-M to
> > distinguish between online and offline modes will think they're offline
> > after uninstalling N-M until t
[ dropping 542095@ ]
Hi,
On 2012-07-10 15:32, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> > What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly
> > match the "makes life easier for > XXX>" scenario you describe.
>
> Recommends is wro
Le mardi 10 juillet 2012 à 17:38 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
> What's wrong with Recommends: in that case? It seems to perfectly
> match the "makes life easier for XXX>" scenario you describe.
Recommends is wrong for metapackages because it gets upgrades very
wrong. This is why it is used very
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:16PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> and also, as Philipp Kern noticed before, things that use N-M to
> distinguish between online and offline modes will think they're offline
> after uninstalling N-M until they are restarted.
You get this even with n-m installed, if n-
Félix Arreola Rodríguez writes:
> But, ignoring the "a desktop works fine without n-m" thing, n-m makes
> more, much more easy connecting to wifi networks, espeacially for
> laptops. I suggest make Laptop task depend on n-m, in this way, n-m
> don't get installed on desktop systems, just on laptop
El lun, 09-07-2012 a las 19:46 +0100, Ian Jackson escribió:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> > "Breaks unrelated software" on the system is a RC severity, and there's no
> > way one can say a windowing environment is relate
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:46:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> > "Breaks unrelated software" on the system is a RC severity, and there's no
> > way one can say a windowing environment is relate
Adam Borowski writes ("Re: duplicates in the archive"):
> "Breaks unrelated software" on the system is a RC severity, and there's no
> way one can say a windowing environment is related to core networking.
> Thus, I'd say, #542095 needs to be upgraded -- an
> WHOOPS, SORRY. Meant to delete this old draft, not send it.
> The issue is valid, but sorry for incomplete mail.
>
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 04:48:01PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, S
WHOOPS, SORRY. Meant to delete this old draft, not send it.
The issue is valid, but sorry for incomplete mail.
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 04:48:01PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante Signel
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been
> > > using it quite successfully without nm installed.
> > Have you tried to use evolution wi
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:38:42PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been
> > using it quite successfully without nm installed.
> Have you tried to use evolution without NM?
I didn't try but it only suggests network-manager. However
Svante Signell kirjoitti:
>On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 08:19 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>> Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've
>been
>> using it quite successfully without nm installed.
>
>Have you tried to use evolution without NM?
Evolution is not, so far as
]] Neil Williams
> Popcon indicates almost nothing - least of all popularity. The
> weaknesses of popcon for archive-related questions is well documented.
> It might give a hint but it is *not* a reliable indicator.
While it's not perfect, I'm not aware of any better tool we have.
Relying on hea
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 08:19 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>
> Adam Borowski kirjoitti:
>
> >Sure, let's start removals with ones that hard-depend on things a
> >window
> >manager shouldn't touch, like network-manager.
Yes, why not!
> Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at l
Hello,
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:36:13 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
> If it can be justified. That's what the objective comparison would
> need to demonstrate. That's an established pattern in Debian - if
> someone wants to add something which is the same as something else,
> there should be a good r
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:36:13PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:42:33 +0200
> Arno Töll wrote:
>
> > On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> > > packages which already have multiple duplicates in th
Neil Williams writes:
> Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive.
I think it's hard to defend the contention that the quantity of packages
has some strong relationship to whether or not those programs duplic
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:18:00PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:48:43 +
> Bart Martens wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > > > What makes 42 window manager
Adam Borowski kirjoitti:
>Sure, let's start removals with ones that hard-depend on things a
>window
>manager shouldn't touch, like network-manager.
Which wm does that? I know it isn't gnome-shell at least, as I've been
using it quite successfully without nm installed.
(I hope this message lo
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43?
>
> Who said 42 is acceptable?
Sure, let's start removals with ones that hard-depend on things a window
manager
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:46:55 +
Bart Martens wrote:
> > The maintainer has to make that judgement, it's just one of the things
> > maintainers have to do. popcon is no indicator here, it is about
> > whether there is a bug in Debian, independent of this package.
>
> Not only the maintainer bu
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:48:43 +
Bart Martens wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > > What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43?
> >
> > Who said 42 is acceptable?
>
> The neglec
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43?
>
> Who said 42 is acceptable?
The neglected ones should be removed. If they're all well maintained and all
use
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:48:48PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:45:54 +
> Bart Martens wrote:
>
> > About allowing new packages in Debian in general : On the one hand you have
> > a
> > point that Debian should not collect any free software, but on the other
> > hand
Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43?
Who said 42 is acceptable?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:45:54 +
Bart Martens wrote:
> About allowing new packages in Debian in general : On the one hand you have a
> point that Debian should not collect any free software, but on the other hand
> I
> think that it is OK to have multiple implementations of the same/similar
>
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:42:33 +0200
Arno Töll wrote:
> On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> > packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive.
>
> Letting alone the package in particular (I don't even know
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 06:51:47PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:31:12 +0200
> Arno Töll wrote:
>
> Dropping the bug CC.
>
> > On 24.06.2012 19:15, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > This bug is *not* useful to anyone. Please close it and find an
> > > RC bug to close instead.
> >
Hi,
On 24.06.2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
> Whatever happens, there is no place for yet another duplicate of
> packages which already have multiple duplicates in the archive.
Letting alone the package in particular (I don't even know it, nor do I
care), I wonder where you'd draw that line. As
+++ Neil Williams [2012-06-24 18:51 +0100]:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:31:12 +0200
> Arno Töll wrote:
>
> Dropping the bug CC.
>
> > On 24.06.2012 19:15, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > This bug is *not* useful to anyone. Please close it and find an
> > > RC bug to close instead.
> >
> > I'm pretty su
35 matches
Mail list logo
