Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome

[Don Armstrong]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The code that makes it actually *work* without NM installed was
> added for kFreeBSD – incidentally, by the same NM maintainer whose
> work has been repeatedly thrown into mud in the discussions.

So, besides the important goal of a complete gnome experience, there's
no other technical reason why NM must be installed?

> I disagree with the contents of §5 and §6.

What in particular about §5 and §6?

> The release notes are here precisely for this kind of cases.

This is certainly one of the possibilities that the CTTE (or a
maintainer) could proscribe to resolve this problem; I wouldn't be
averse to seeing an additional option proposed for a vote which did
just this.

> The resolution also doesn’t mention which problems upgrading from a
> squeeze system without NM to a wheezy system with NM causes.

 "It attempts to avoid overriding local manual configuration, but it
  isn't able to detect all cases where the user is using some other
  component or system to manage networking."

> For these reasons, I consider resolution #681834 to be driven by
> religious motives rather than technical ones,

It's inflammatory to accuse others of having religious motives.[1] I
personally have no interest in punishing, persecuting, or otherwise
attacking the gnome maintainers or any other maintainer in Debian, and
I would be surprised if all of the other members of the CTTE don't
feel the same way.

We all want Debian to be a technically excellent distribution which
users want to use, and while we *often* have very different ideas on
what that actually means, we have come to those ideas by honest means.

> and that it was conducted in haste.

I'm not sure if I would consider a two month long decision process
hasty, but since we seem to be doomed to readdress this issue again,
lets please try to make all of the arguments and solutions out front
so we can make a ideal decision.

> I have not said anything so far because the wording allows (and
> again, I thought this was intentional) for the compromise to move
> the dependency to the gnome package.

I certainly didn't expect that to be a compromise position given the
underlying logic of the decision, and I certainly would have liked to
have addressed that point during the decision. I concede, however,
that it would be possible to construe the decision this way.

> But if people from either side start questioning this compromise, I
> am afraid they are going to do a lot of harm to the project.

We're all on the same side together.


Don Armstrong

1: Additionally, the negative connotation is offensive to the many
people who are involved in or use Debian who have religious beliefs.
-- 
-tommorow is our permanent address
and there they'll scarcely find us(if they do,
we'll move away still further:into now
 -- e.e. cummings "XXXIX" _1 x 1_

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu