Re: [timshel@pobox.com: X4 phase 2 packages issue ...]
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:42:28AM -0400, Franklin Belew wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 01:33:56AM +1100, Timshel Knoll wrote:
> > Also, I have noticed that some of the packages you mention that are having
> > problems with libxpm4 depend directly on xpm4g rather than libxpm4, so
> > some of these problems could be fixed by making xlibs provide xpm4g.
> > This won't work for packages with versioned dependancies on xpm4g,
> > however, which include most of the packages that apt/dselect want to
> > remove ... :(
> >
> NO NO NO NO NO
> xpm4g is so old and out of date that it shouldn't be poerpetuated
> If these packages don't update to use libxpm4 as the xpm in potato and woody
> provide, and that XF4 provides, they deserve to be uninstallible because
> the maintainers are either awol, or just plain ignoring bug reports
But surely having xlibs Provide: xpm4g (at least for a while, until all
dependancies on xpm4g have been fixed to libxpm4) will make the upgrade
path that much easier ... at the moment a number of packages still depend
on xpm4g so removing it will force all these packages to be removed by apt.
What's wrong with a simple Provides: at the moment? I'm not suggesting
something permanent, it's just that I would hate to see X4 in the dist
with a simple Provides: missing that would prevent a number of packages
being removed ...
>
>
> PS: Branden, maybe this should go in a FAQ
>
>
> Frank aka Myth
>
--
Timshel Knoll <timshel@pobox.com> for Debian email: <timshel@debian.org>
Second year Computer Science, RMIT | CS108 Tutor (Semester 2, 2000)
Debian GNU/Linux developer, see http://www.debian.org/~timshel/
For GnuPG public key: finger timshel@ozemail.com.au or timshel@debian.org
Reply to: