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

Re: Potato to Woody dist-upgrade problems

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:25:22AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> The configuration error is the same debconf missing ']' error that has
> been connected with xserver-svga for as long as I can remember. The fixed
> version of the svga server is not yet available in Woody.
> > Keep in mind that the latest version of xserver-svga is not yet in
> > testing.  Try -44 to see what I'm talking about.
> Exactly. None of which helps a Woody upgrade. 
> If you are installing from Woody, you can't get to the fixed server.

Guess what, Dale.  I can't wave a magic wand and change a historical
version of a package.  Perhaps you should devote some of your endless
reserves of time, energy, and resources to helping ensure that xfree86v3
-44 gets into woody; that way, all of Debian's users can benefit, not
just those who are nuts enough to install a single package from unstable
to demonstrate to themselves that a bug that aggravates the shit out of
them has already been fixed.

> > Glad to hear it.  This should work for the version 3 X server packages
> > as well.  Remember, use -44.
> Yes, if they were available in Woody. What needs to happen for that to
> occur? I realize this was fixed ages ago, but that doesn't help if it
> never propogates into Woody.

Well, let's find out, shall we?

$ grep-excuses xfree86
     * xfree86v3 (3.3.6-42 to 3.3.6-44)
          + Maintainer: Branden Robinson
          + Too young, only 7 of 10 days old
          + Not considered

Ooh, I know, maybe you can file a release-critical bug about this
"debconf missing ']' error", and put a stop to the fearful prospect of
xfree86v3 showing up in woody.

> Which one is responsible for providing "fixed" fonts?

xfonts-base.  (BTW, only one font can have the name "fixed".)

> Why does the FAQ only mention xfonts-base?

See above.

> > > is not installed. This causes the "fixed" fonts to not be found. Some
> > > form of server dependency would fix this one.
> > 
> > Wrong.  The X server does not depend on locally installed fonts.  Read
> It refused to run locally without them. That sounds like a dependency to
> me.

Perhaps you should check your hearing.  Install xfonts-base on a
reachable remote host, install xfs on that host, configure xfs to listen
on the TCP port by editing /etc/X11/fs/config, and add a line to the
Files section of your X server config file:

	FontPath	"tcp/remote.host.org:7100"

(Also see:
"How do I get the X server to find the "fixed" font?" in the Debian X FAQ;
XF86Config-4(5) )

> I DID read the Debian X FAQ. It says quite clearly that if you get the
> "fixed" font error install xbase-fonts.

...among other solutions.

> Dist-upgrade failed to do this, and I had to do it by hand.

This is either:

1) A bug in apt's problem resolver;
2) A problem with my package relationships;
3) User error (i.e., apt-get dist-upgrade may not be intended to be a

x-window-system and x-window-system-core exist to work around 1), I'm
willing to address 2) if someone can bring an actual bug to my
attention, and the first step to solving 3) is admitting you have a
problem.  :)

> My ignorance of TCP font services should be covered by the
> installation process, specially on an upgrade.

I agree.  See the 3-way switch above.

> > x-window-system-core
> > x-window-system
> Both of these task packages were instlled on the original Potato install.

I doubt that:

branden@auric:~$ madison x-window-system
x-window-system |   4.1.0-13 |       testing | all
x-window-system |   4.1.0-13 |      unstable | all
branden@auric:~$ madison x-window-system-core
x-window-system-core |   4.1.0-13 |       testing | all
x-window-system-core |   4.1.0-13 |      unstable | all

Those packages do not exist in any incarnation of potato.

(Perhaps you're thinking of the task packages used by potato, which I
was asked to get rid of; task packages now work differently in potato;
ask the debian-boot team for more info.)

> > Looking up the package descriptions for these meta-packages is left as
> > an exercise for the reader.  (Hint: it involves "apt-cache show".)
> Thanks for the extra, useless homework. You are such a pip.

I was unaware that asking someone who purports to be writing
documentation for a general audience to read source material was a
"useless" exercise.

Is it your intention to be more ignorant than your audience?  If so,
what reason do they have for using your resource?

> > FYI, I upgraded a stock potato box (2.2r5) to woody just last week using
> > dist-upgrade and managed to not lose xbase-clients.
> Well, bully for you. The dist-upgrade I did had the opposite effect. I
> guess this is because apt-get only works for the clued people, huh?

See Figure 1.

> I suspect that you have other install targets than woody in you apt-get
> sources.list file. That's only a guess. As our experiences are a couple of
> weeks appart, I guess it is also possible that the archives are different
> now than they were.

Nope, just a dist-upgrade from 2.2r5 to testing.

> Given that there are no real choices for the user to make once 'apt-get
> dist-upgrade' is executed, your insistance that I am mistaken is of little
> value.

Maybe to you...

> Sorry, I should have said: This feature will work fine for those who are
> not as ignorant as myself. Faahh!

See Figure 1.

> > You should probably develop a greater command of the facts before
> > dispensing bad advice in your book.
> A. That was the reason for my posting. You have done nothing to improve my
> grasp of the facts.

Not for lack of trying on my part.

> B. That would be a lot easier if you were actually dispensing facts
> instead of put-downs.

In actual fact, I'm dispensing both.

> Branden, just as you have no interest in hearing from me about my problems
> using X, I currently have no interest in hearing what you have to say on
> any subject. You have no concept of what "mind share" means. Your postings
> to this list are, for the most part, cute, but with little useful content.

I trust the people who read this mailing list to be able to make up
their own minds about that.  In any event, I don't think documentation
embodying the metaphor of the blind leading the blind is going to do
much good in increasing Debian's "mind share".

To educate, one must be educated.  If you're unwilling to educate
yourself, or to learn from others, a poor educator will you make.

> I am fully aware of my ignorance, and don't mind having it pointed out,
> but if you think that calling me a liar will make the problems I see go
> away, then think again.

I haven't accused you of disseminating deliberate falsehoods, just ones
born of ignorance.  Now, if I were to bring up an issue of payment for
chapter review services rendered 2-3 years ago for a previous
incarnation of your book, that might imply a charge of deception (or,
perhaps, absent-mindedness).  But, I'm not bringing that up.  :)

G. Branden Robinson                |     It's not a matter of alienating
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     authors.  They have every right to
branden@debian.org                 |     license their software however we
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     like.  -- Craig Sanders

Attachment: pgpgOnEaYZxKf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: