Re: the Great X Reorganization, package splits, and renaming
Branden Robinson:
> [...]
> Only now do you seem to be concerned.
No, this has been a frequently asked question for some time in
debian-user. I should probably add it to the Debian FAQ.
Please, note that I'm not blaming you for not having thought about this
problem *in advance*. I just want to see it solved in *whatever* way.
> [...]
> > Upgrading a system from hamm to slink should make the system to be in the
> > same state as if slink had been installed from scratch.
> >
> > Otherwise, Debian will become just a W95 clone very soon (have you ever
> > asked yourself why people reinstall W95 so often?).
>
> This is a straw-man argument. Isolate one criterion -- if we don't meet
> that by YOUR standard, we're no better than Windows 95.
The W95 case was just an example.
The upgrade *should* be smooth. This is not my criterion, it is one of
the things that Debian has promised to our users, and it is something the
users expect from us.
> [...]
> I reiterate my challenge. Demonstrate to me a manner in which a
> hamm system upgraded to slink, which keeps the old X font and static
> library packages, will be broken.
Well, I have already said that the fact that the harm is not immediate
does not mean that it is less broken.
However, if you want something immediate, here it is: dselect will show
the old packages as being "obsolete". This will cause a lot of
confusion, a lot of questions to answer and a lot of time lost for
everybody.
And of course a lot of fear about Debian, since people will think that we
change names gratuitously without a good reason to do so, and more
important, without implementing a good renaming mechanism *first* in dpkg.
Are you trying to tell me that it is *better* that the X packages do *not*
upgrade automatically? (I hope not).
Put it simply: You have, as X maintainer, the right to rename the packages
as you want. However, once they are renamed, we have a problem, they do
not upgrade automatically, as everybody expects. Then we have two choices:
1. Do whatever we can with existing tools so that the X packages are
effectively automatically upgraded.
2. Do nothing.
Is your word final in that you are not convinced that we should make
whatever is needed to ensure that the X packages are automatically
upgraded, as the rest of the system is?
[ Maybe I should post an "intent to package" message then and stop this
discussion ].
Thanks.
--
"a378a07a477f4abbab1735772121291f" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: