Re: the Great X Reorganization, package splits, and renaming
Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> With the current state of things, a Debian system which is upgraded by
> dselect from hamm to slink, from slink to potato, from potato to potato+1,
> and from potato+1 to potato+2 may have, say, X version 5.5, and xfonts
> version 126.96.36.199-2.
> Do you think this may be of any good?
> Don't you agree that we should try to avoid it?
What you described, in itself, is not a problem.
We'll have to keep around the empty xfnt* packages indefinitely (should they
need to be created) until a better solution is available, no matter what.
I think you missed the bit where Branden was promissing to make the empty
xfnt* packages wherever they were actually needed (for people to be able
to upgrade smoothly).
I think you have a valid point about the way dselect will present the
information. dselect presenting package entries which say why they're
obsolete (or depreciated) would be more user friendly than what it
presents as the default for missing packages.