Re: 'synaptic' removed from buster
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:04:00 -0500
- From: David Wright <deblis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: 'synaptic' removed from buster
On Sat 06 Apr 2019 at 09:00:14 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 05 April 2019 22:39:23 David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 05 Apr 2019 at 17:01:33 (-0400), Lee wrote:
> > > On 4/5/19, Reco <recoverym4n@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 04:01:50PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:56:49PM -0000, Curt wrote:
> > > >> > My understanding is the problem lies in the Gnome/Wayland combo
> > > >> > (which is the default combo starting with Buster).
> > > >>
> > > >> The problem there, IMHO, is Wayland being the default desktop
> > > >> choice.
> > > >
> > > > ... on amd64/i386 only. Whenever Wayland is the problem or the
> > > > solution, punishing all other supported architectures seems
> > > > extreme.
> > >
> > > That's what I don't understand. Why remove the package if it's only
> > > a problem with some desktops?
> > >
> > > https://wiki.debian.org/Wayland
> > > Unsupported Desktop environments:
> > > Cinnamon: discussed
> > > MATE: planned, source (2014)
> > > XFCE: planned
> > >
> > > Can't [whatever installs the software] notice that Gnome is
> > > installed/selected & not install synaptic? Or patch synaptic to
> > > realize it's running under Gnome & spit out an error message and
> > > quit?
> > I think a better solution would be what's suggested in message #60
> > of the bug report:
> > "Why not make a [Conflicts:] with Wayland / Gnome? It's not
> > possible to make sure that synaptic installs on a [Conflicts:]
> > that would remove Wayland?"
> > This is probably the easiest option to support as it should be
> > possible to implement just by adding a line to the two Packages
> > files for the architectures affected.
> > > Everybody pays the price because it doesn't work with Gnome seems a
> > > bit much.
> I 110% agree.
> > Given a straight toss-up though, I think synaptic has to give way
> > because there are plenty of alternatives.
> Name a Good One! I don't believe you can, and be nameing one the rest of
> us can agree is a good substitute for it. One that works as well as or
> better than synaptic.
They're all good in their own ways. I don't know who "the rest of us"
is, nor who should pass judgment on them.
> > I'd never heard of it until
> > a few people started mentioning it here, and I'd never consider using
> > it myself on X except as an ordinary user.
> That David, I think would be your mistake, for not experienceing a
> package manager that for 99.99% of the job, Just Works. Lots of people
> here will defend aptitude, but I've had aptitude totally destroy my
> systems 3 times now, IMNSHO it should come with big warning labels, and
> a chance to abort it when you hit the g, because once its started to do
> what it thinks is best, and it doesn't always tell you what else its
> going to rip out because of perceived interdependencies, it is totally
> unresponsive to anything but the power switch. In short, aptitude can be
> extremely dangerous to anyone who /thinks/ its a good package manager.
I thought we'd determined that something was messed up in your
terminal definitions back in June 2016, as you were also complaining
about massive screen corruption in aptitude at that time, which no one
else was reporting. In which case, it was never clear to what
questions were actually posed when you were answering g and q.