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

Re: Future of X packages in Debian

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:04:47PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > We could also start the slow app migration, and autotool missing apps as
> > we go; for the time being, just disable the ones that are there. Moving
> > to Thomas Dickey's xterm entirely would also be nice.
> >
> > Thus, my short-term proposal is:
> > 	* Libraries: fd.o, from /cvs/xlibs, according to
> > 	  http://people.debian.org/~daniels/xlibs.html.
> > 	* Server: X.Org, built from the monolithic tree.
> > 	* Apps: Mix of monolithic and some broken-out apps - gradual
> > 	  migration towards modular.
> > 	* Docs/Fonts: X.Org, built from the monolithic tree.
> >
> > If the DDK patches were merged, this might also significantly ease the
> > pain WRT drivers. My preferred long-term solution obviously involves
> > moving to the modular tree.
> >
> > If we continue to have a single monolithic 'xorg' source package, we can
> > keep working from this, while in parallel working upstream on the
> > modularisation efforts. This provides a good solution to the problem of
> > slowly-drifting X implementations (the libraries are particularly
> > worrying), and also alleviates our workload, as we can start merging
> > some of our hundreds of thousands of lines of patches into the parts
> > we've modularised.
> >
> > This means that we can disable app building one-by-one, get rid of the
> > fonts, docs, et al, and eventually also the server.
> >
> > I am willing to expend significant work on this; indeed, I'm in the
> > middle of my rejuvinated xlibs work, and am prepared to put in the work
> > to disable the libs on the server side - all the packaging work that
> > would be needed to transition to using fd.o xlibs.
> How would you perform such a transition without packaging madness? I am
> afraid that we will endup in a big mess of Conflicts: Replaces: Provides:
> that we will have to support across at least one major release.
> (hey just from a fast look.)

Not really - the xlibs bustup did most of the work for us, so we just
need to provide higher versions[0] for the libs. The apps will need a
good epoching, probably, and C/R xbase-clients.

:) d

[0]: A fair few of them are 6.x, but the rest will need an epoch.

Daniel Stone                                                <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system                     http://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: