[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Scary message on new installations

On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 12:06:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:48:31AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Since this warning note has been added specifically because the xserver is
> > > being removed in situations we don't want it to, and the removal is being
> > > caused by a new package that didn't exist in sarge, it is indeed very
> > > difficult to detect the difference between an upgrade and a new install.
> > > For d-i's purposes, preseeding this d-i note into oblivion is an option, but
> > > it would be much nicer if someone could figure out how to keep the xserver
> > > from being removed on upgrade in the first place.
> > Would putting back xserver-xfree86 as a transitional package suffice? Since
> > I don't know how to reproduce this problem locally, my best guess is that
> > the server gets removed due to the conflict with x11-common and then
> > nothing is able to install the new one because xserver-xorg doesn't exist
> > to be marked for upgrade. Putting back an empty xserver-xfree86 that pulls
> > in xserver-xorg should suffice in this corner case, letting us remove the
> > note all together.
> It is still valid for aptitude to remove xserver-xfree86, even as a
> transitional package, if the old version is conflicted with.  There's
> nothing in our packaging system that lets you mark a particular package as
> "not to be removed on upgrade".  A dummy xserver-xfree86 package may fix
> this for most users, though.

Right, but it might be a sufficient hint so that aptitude, and maybe apt,
will do the right thing. Ok... I'll lower the priority of the note to
medium and add the xserver-xfree86 dummy package. Hopefully that'll be
sufficient. As discussed elsewhere, I'd prefer to use NEWS.Debian, but it
won't be shown to the user in this case, so a medium priority debconf
abusing note should suffice.

 - David Nusinow

Reply to: