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

Re: FYI: intent to NMU to fix SDL + static X extension library problem



On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 07:06:48PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> One thing I don't fully understad is why introducing such disgusting
> package names is better than making the new sdl library package simply
> conflict with the old versions of the 72 (rough count) packages that it
> breaks.

Anthony and I talked about that.  In my opinion, a Conflicts line that
long is begging for trouble.  Plus I'd have to stick it in 4 different
binary packages (libsdl1.2debian-all, libsdl1.2debian-oss,
libsdl1.2debian-esd, libsdl1.2debian-alsa).

> Gross 72 package Conflicts line vs. several gross blahblah1.2debian
> packages. Which is uglier?

IMO, 4 copies of a 72-package Conflicts line is uglier.

That doesn't mean I think "libsdl1.2debian" is pretty.  It's ugly too.

> The other thing I don't understand is, even if sticking "debian" in the
> package name is indeed less ugly, why was it put in the name of
> libsdl1.2debian (a dummy package)?

Internal consistency.

If libsdl1.3 comes out before we absolutely positively have to freeze
it, this horrible hack won't be visible in the release.

Speaking of libsdl1.3, all that autoconf magic was against the upstream
source, so I need to be contacting the upstream of the 5 packages I
mentioned.

Unless the package maintainers want to do it for me... :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      It doesn't matter what you are
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      doing, emacs is always overkill.
branden@debian.org                 |      -- Stephen J. Carpenter
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpnFHws_mBSj.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: