new NetworkManager dependencies?

[Tom Horsley]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:56:42 -0800
Gordon Messmer wrote:

> It's less work to simply disable NetworkManager, and less likely 
> to cause a dependent package to fail.

Not when "disable" is apparently only a mild suggestion that
has no actual effect :-). Apparently the word which actually
means "disable" is "mask".

Also if there are any real dependencies on NM, they are gonna
fail anyway, because NM isn't running anything on my system
and anyone expecting it to be able to do things to the
network is already broken.