Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome

[Josselin Mouette]

Let me comment on the proposals again.

Le mardi 23 octobre 2012 à 15:16 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> 2. Our intent, as stated in the rationale section of our previous
>    decision (#681834, paras 3 and 5), is that squeeze users who have
>    gnome installed but not network-manager do not find that
>    network-manager becomes installed when they upgrade to wheezy.

There lies the real disagreement.

Our very intent is that squeeze users who have gnome installed but not
NM *do* find that NM becomes installed when they upgrade to wheezy.
(Actually we should have done that for the lenny→squeeze upgrade but
vocal people already won that time.)

The fact that it could potentially, in very specific to-be-described
cases, break something, should be documented in the release notes.

Everything else Ian and you have proposed derives from the fact that you
want to force NM out.

> B 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
> B    dependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
> B    should be replaced with a dependecy on network-manager-gnome (>=
> B    0.9.4) | wicd.

Seriously, WTFF? Is it just a show-off option to make us think it’s
better to use a Recommends instead?

> B 5. Bugs in network-manager-gnome which break the functionality of
> B    existing /etc/network/interfaces rules are to be considered RC.

Not replacing /e/n/i means that NM will not detect your connection, and
as such your desktop will be unusable. If your intent is to generate RC
bugs, congratulations, but that will not help with the release.

And as for Ian’s hateful prose…

> 8. We specifically forbid anyone from introducing in wheezy, or
>    in sid until wheezy is released:
>     a. Any new or enhanced dependencies, or any other mechanisms,
>        which increase the likelihood of network-manager being
>        installed;
>     b. Any new or enhanced user-facing warnings, imprecations, or
>        other kinds of message regarding the alleged desirability or
>        requirement to install network-manager;
>     c. Any change which in any way impairs (or further impairs) the
>        functioning of systems with GNOME components installed but
>        without network-manager;
>     d. Any change which is contrary to the spirit or intent of either
>        our previous resolution in #681834 or this resolution.
>    without first obtaining the permission of at least one member of
>    the Technical Committee.

Does it really need commenting?

> 9. It is disappointing that this proposed solution to the problem was
>    not mentioned during the TC discussion.  If it had been, it could
>    have been accepted or rejected by the TC at the time.

Maybe more communication would have occurred if this discussion had been
driven by a reasonable person.

> 10. We remind everyone that the Constitution requires members of the
>    project not to work against decisions properly made according to
>    the project's governance processes.  On this occasion we do not
>    feel it necessary to refer anyone to the Debian Account Managers
>    asking for a review of their status.

I still stand on the stance that Ian’s behavior is unacceptable; and
proposing this kind of passive-agressive wording in a TC decision is
part of the problem. He should step down from the committee or be forced
to do so.

In the current situation, I do not feel bound by any decisions the
committee might make.

-- 
 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-