On Monday 03 March 2008, Tormod Volden wrote: > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Sune Vuorela <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Wouldn't it have been much better to do: > > > > xscreensaver (metapackage pulling in what xscreensaver used to) > > xscreensaver-core (core backend without hacks) > > xscreensaver-data (standard hacks) > > (and so on) > > That was an option, but we chose the other way. "Much better", I don't > know, either way. much better == don't give loads of extra work to other maintainers. > > You definately need a versioned conflicts in xscreensaver against all > > versions of kscreensaver you are breaking with this change. > > Currently you are breaking kscreensaver, you are breaking partial > > upgrades from etch and in general just annoying me. > > Yes, we can add the versioned conflicts. You have to. at least. or make xscreensaver provide the content it actually once did (maybe thru its dependencies) > (How excellent satire.) I don't understand what ways you're using your > own desktop files, but never mind. You probably just can get a small > patch from Ubuntu - there kscreensaver-xsavers also ships own desktop > files but seems to deal gracefully with hacks that are not installed. > Some of your fellow co-maintainers should know the details. The only thing ubuntu does is remove TryExec= calls from all desktop files. The only way to figure out what is actually insntalled. so they don't deal with it gracefully. They deal with it luckily. > > Any information please. It has worked very well so far - I see > > absolutely no proper reasoning in what you write about this split. > > This is for the good for all of us. You are probably using KDE, but > there's more out there. That it used to work for you didn't mean it > was all perfect. You still haven't told what problems it actually tries to solve. > > For me, it just looks like "we can split it - let's do it" - and even > > done in a much breaking way. > > Let's don't get so dramatic. From what I saw from the report, > kscreensaver did not break so terribly, just a few non-existing savers > showed up in the preferences. If we really want to fix this quickly, > just add dependencies to xscreensaver-data and > xscreensaver-data-extra. However, once it's fixed properly, I suggest > removing the dependency on xscreensaver-data-extra. As we want to provide full functionality, I don't see why we should drop the dependencies later on? /Sune -- I'm not able to boot the terminale to a display on a space bar on a login from the file within Excel XP, how does it work? You must forward from a coaxial AGP hard disk and from the control preferences menu inside Office you either can't insert the e-mail, or should never turn off a BIOS device of the laser IP directory, so that therefore from MkLinux and from DOS NT you have to disable the cache for telnetting to a memory address over the memory.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.