[Merge] lp:~stgraber/indicator-power/revert-20130913 into lp:indicator-power

[Ted Gould]

On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 23:34 -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:14:08PM -0400, Didier Roche wrote:
> > Le 13/09/2013 23:10, Ted Gould a écrit :
> > >On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 02:47 +0000, Didier Roche wrote:
> > >>Reverted because it's breaking FFe, Upstream, please file one before merging that.
> > >
> > >Seriously, not cool guys.  We landed this feature back in August.
> > >Then it got backed out because of a MIR, which we filed and
> > >finally got in.  Then we got blocked by the release system not
> > >releasing indicator-power for almost two weeks.
> > >
> > >That being said it's a menu item that only appears on the phone
> > >and should be covered by the FFe for indicator features that are
> > >exclusive to the phone UI.
> > 
> > Ted, look at the discussion on IRC:
> > http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2013/09/14/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t01:41
> 
> So, to summarize, all the dependencies are indeed in main and so the
> resulting package is perfectly fine on the phone.
> 
> The problem is that this added dependency also brings 10 extra packages
> to the Ubuntu Desktop installation, most if not all of those packages
> are supposed to be touch-specific and as such benefit from the generic
> touch FFe that was granted earlier on.



I understand your concern about bringing in additional packages onto the
desktop image.  What I don't agree with is removing the feature from
indicator-power instead of figuring out the issues with all of those
packages being brought onto the image.  The issue is that
liburl-dispatcher1 recommends url-dispatcher, as is customary on
libraries that implement the interface of a service.

We could remove the recommends.  While that is breaking with tradition,
from a practical level there will be no issue as url-dispatcher itself
can be seeded on the touch images and we'll only be using it's features
on those images anyway.

If other people have solutions, I'd be happy to hear them.  I don't
think that we should revert a feature over a packaging issue.

Ted

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/attachments/20130914/ecdfb33b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/attachments/20130914/ecdfb33b/attachment.pgp>