Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]

[Michel Dänzer <daenzer@debian.org>]

On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was
> > > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed.
> > > > 
> > > > Not too bad, methinks.
> > > 
> > > I don't like it.  Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or
> > > just DRI-specific?  I think the latter.
> > 
> > The DRM is maintained by the DRI project, but this is the copy shipped
> > in the 4.3 release of XFree86.
> 
> Is anyone else shipping DRM module sources (apart from kernel package
> maintainers)?

I am, from several branches of the DRI tree.


> > [...] I pointed out the transition issue. The question is whether 
> > transitions matter in sid or only between stable releases, where 
> > there will be one after woody anyway.
> 
> I want people to be able to smoothly upgrade from:
>   1) woody
>   2) the previous unstable version of XFree86
>   3) the version of XFree86 in testing at the time this goes into unstable

Sounds reasonable, I'll keep that in mind.


> I have a few concerns:
> * package names need to be clear and communicative
> * package names should be chosen such that they don't have to be changed
>   again in the near future

Guess why I brought up all the naming mumbo jumbo? :)

> * libGLU should not be dropped from the XFree86 packages until this
>   action can be handled gracefully

I never suggested otherwise.


> > > Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared
> > > library package name...
> > 
> > I wouldn't, why should I, but just libgl1 doesn't work for the libGL
> > package unfortunately.
> 
> Of course not.  It's a virtual package (and, I guess, a pure virtual
> one, which is even better).

My point exactly.

> That the most obvious choice of a package name is unavailable does not
> mean that care should not be exercised in choosing a different one.
> Your armchair proposals followed by Daniel's rapid adoption of them
> without consulting me, even though he said he'd leave the issue "in my
> court", does not strike me as a process exhibiting care.

Err, I'm a bit lost here, I don't understand what this is supposed to be
all about. I provided a couple of proposals for discussion, that's all.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer   \  Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast  \     http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer