On Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 04:44:22AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > All right. That's what I'm going to do, then. I had a feeling that would > be it. > > Anyone who thinks this solution is an abomination in the sight of the Lord > is welcome to file a bug against XFree86 3.3.2-3 whenever I release it. :) Sorry to be generating all the noise, folks, but I just thought of a better solution. Similar to the manpages problem is the XF86Config problem. xbase doesn't need it, its example, or its manpage, but all the X servers do. My solution to XF86Config and X server manpage issues: Make a new package, xserver-base, on which all xserver packages depend, which contains: /usr/X11R6/bin/xf86config /usr/X11R6/man/man1/XF86_Accel.1x.gz /usr/X11R6/man/man1/xf86config.1x.gz /usr/X11R6/man/man5/XF86Config.5x.gz /usr/doc/xserver-base/README.Debian (to be written) /usr/doc/xserver-base/examples/XF86Config.eg The xserver packages will ship with their own manpages, which will contain the .so link to the manpage provided by xserver-base (except for the servers mono, vga16 and svga, which will ship with a normal manpage). Advantages: 1) People who want an xserver, and JUST the xserver, thank you, can get the manpages and xf86config program without having to install the massive xbase package. 2) Fixes a bunch of niggling policy violations/lintian errors, and seems much more elegant to me. Issues: 1) Strictly speaking, while users of those unaccelerated servers will need the xserver-base package, the XF86_Accel manpage will be useless to them. But I'll be damned if I'm going to make an "xserver-accel-base" just to hold that one manpage. I'm willing to waste 10334 bytes of space on the drives of xserver-{mono,vga16,svga} users. Good judgement or not? 2) I am not an xdm guru, and I don't know what (if anything) would be necessary to move into xserver-base to handle XDMCP sessions. Or would such people need xbase anyway? I've never personally configured a Linux machine that ran it's own xserver without also running some clients locally as well, so I need to know what I need to do make it possible to eliminate xbase entirely for some scenarios where that would be the case (no local X clients). I must assume such scenarios exist, else why haven't the X servers depended on xbase all along? 3) xbase ships with a symlink /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/XF86Config -> /etc/X11/XF86Config . However, /etc/X11/XF86Config is not guaranteed to exist when the package is installed (if the user doesn't accept the postinst's offer to run xf86config, for instance). I think it's nasty to ship a broken symlink, and I was going to have the postinst make the symlink if and only if xf86config created one, but this has two problems: a) at least one developer feels that anything in /usr should be shipped, broken symlink or not; I didn't hear his justification for this, but I generally trust his judgement. b) Just because xf86config doesn't buld an XF86Config file doesn't mean the user isn't going to have one -- he/she may have a known good one ready to move into place, and they shouldn't have to make the symlink manually. Suggestions? Unless met with strenuous protests from many quarters, I plan to have this in XFree86 by hamm release time. I can't guarantee that it will make it into -3, which will probably be released sometime this weekend. The above message is a sample of the kind of tasks the X Strike Force will be designed to handle. If such issues get your blood pumping, I invite you to mail me and express your interest. -- G. Branden Robinson | If a man ate a pound of pasta and a Purdue University | pound of antipasto, would they cancel branden@purdue.edu | out, leaving him still hungry? http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Scott Adams
Attachment:
pgp481nq9eRsV.pgp
Description: PGP signature