On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 14:48:10 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very
> > happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built
> > acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed.
> I'm not sure I like the attitude here. "If that gets closed again"
> sounds like I was closing the bug without a reason, which I didn't.
Sure! It was not my intention to make it sound like you closed it w/o
reason; given the comment on the previous paragraph stating that I
didn't reply to the bug report, I thought that would be clear. I guess
> I'm absolutely willing to listen to ideas of solving this, which imo
> would be a much better solution than creating an additional package
> that will only partly work. But please don't forget that upstream
> started using consolekit for a reason.
I agree that coming up with a working solution that works for everyone
would be perfect. The comment about the bug being closed again was only
referring to the possibility that you, as the maintainer, could not be
convinced, which would be completely respectable, and in such case
because we'd still disagree there's other options for us; removing the
packages, switching to something else, or keep forking them locally to
remove the dependency, but if Bernhard is willing to maintain such
fork inside or outside Debian, then all the better. OTOH taking this
for example to the tech-ctte would *not* be an option, because I've
never considered that to be a reasonable solution to anything.
I'll follow up on the acpi-support bug report.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org