This one time, at band camp, Daniel Stone said: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 06:21:06AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:52:45PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > Obviously, this is nvidia-glx's problem, not xorg's. > > > > The nvidia-glx package exists, and was here first. You don't get to say > > it's somebody else's problem when *your* package causes a user's > > dist-upgrade from sarge to etch to fail. > > > > If the nvidia-glx package should not be providing this file, then that's a > > bug as well, but you haven't given explanation of *why* this is a bug in > > nvidia-glx. If the file needs to be removed/moved, then it's fine to > > wait until this is done in nvidia-glx before adding an appropriate > > Conflicts: or Replaces:, but in the end the bug still needs to be dealt > > with in xserver-xorg. > > At this stage, I will defer to your superior knowledge of the > situation, and not reassign the bug. This has been an ongoing thing, I thought, and could be solved with a dpkg-divert, rather than a conflicts line. There are several other implemnetations floating around on line (the non free ATI drivers also suffer from this), so at least getting everybody in Debian to do this would cause a lot less pain all around. Juat a thought, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature