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

Re: List of bugs that *must* be fixed before releasing Slink



On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 10:54:20AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > xbase             30852  X packages do not upgrade automatically due to name change. [41]  (Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>)
> > > xdm               29360  xdm: Stopped X without warning/asking [77]  (Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>)
> > > xlib6             31610  xlib6: requires gcc but declares no dependency (dpkg --print-gnu-build-architecture?) [20]  (Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>)
> > > xserver-common    29166  xserver-common: should depend or at least recommend properly ver'd xlib6g [81]  (Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>)
> 
> There's supposed to be a new version of the X stuff; does it fix all of these?

Yes.

30852: xbase is now a pseudo-package that depends on the packages that
have bits of the old xbase

29360: point 1) is an issue for the release notes; I can't retroactively
patch an old prerm; 2) seems to be fixed thanks to Marcelo's xdm patch (but
I'd like more testing); 3) I am not having xdm depend on any xfonts
packages or xfs (contrary to my last bug mail), because there's really no
way to put

Depends: "xfonts-base |
font-path-in-your-XF86Config-file-that-points-to-a-working-font-server-
which-has-the-fonts-you-want"

xdm depends on fonts no more or less than any other X client, so there is
no reason to give it special treatment.

31610: long story short, this is fixed in -9

29166: this is fixed too.  The stuff that depends on xlib6g has been moved
into xbase-clients; xserver-common is not supposed to have anything to do
with the X libraries (so as to support X-server-only installations)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson              |   Any man who does not realize that he is
Debian GNU/Linux                 |   half an animal is only half a man.
branden@ecn.purdue.edu           |   -- Thornton Wilder
cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpCSfNHa0MW9.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: