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

Bug#261854: marked as spam Bug#261854 acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#261854: xlibs: some softlinks not made correctly, installer fails to upgrade)


I've replied to this message to say I am not satisfied with the closure.
I do not appreciate being called completely bogues.

I beleive my research in the origional message and the follow-up stands as that which cannot be disproved. I spent time researhing what I wrote.

The same effect happened to 3 dist-upgraded machines, each which had had woody installed fresh at differing dates.

       John D. Hendrickson



Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#261854: xlibs: some softlinks not made correctly, installer fails to upgrade,
which was filed against the xlibs package.

It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org>.

Their explanation is attached below.  If this explanation is
unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
message then please contact the developer, by replying to this email.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at 261854-done) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Jul 2004 16:26:43 +0000
From daniel@fooishbar.org Wed Jul 28 09:26:42 2004
Return-path: <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Received: from fooishbar.org (tycho.fooishbar.org) [] (postfix)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1BprGM-0007U9-00; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:26:42 -0700
Received: by tycho.fooishbar.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id ADB28E9C036; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 02:26:42 +1000
From: Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org>
To: "John D. Hendrickson" <jdh@hend.net>, 261854-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#261854: xlibs: some softlinks not made correctly, installer fails to upgrade
Message-ID: <20040728162642.GP23526@fooishbar.org>
References: <200407281601.i6SG1c4W011734@hend.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pN9MePJoZbRKbUk1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200407281601.i6SG1c4W011734@hend.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i
Delivered-To: 261854-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 X-Spam-Level:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:01:38PM -0400, John D. Hendrickson wrote:

Two things.  One, xlibs did not install files correctly.  Two, all X pack=


now require a new directory structure (which I hate).  Anyway the install=


does nothing to provide this new directory structure.  I made a script wh=


does this which has done this for me on several machines.
Just did a "dist-upgrade" to sarge
for libs I had xlib's /usr/lib/libXft.so and a couple others in /usr/lib
These are xlibs, not usr libs, they shouldn't even have links into /usr/l=


After remaking the links the installer goofed, it worked.  Somehow the
installer doesn't take into account the present / previous state when mak=


its links.
I found the ONLY reason libXft need to be in /usr/lib is due to gtk.  Whi=


all else of gnome correctly uses X11R6/lib, gtk uses /usr/lib, oddly.  Fix
that and you fix allot of confusion.  The ./configure for gtk is just flat
wrong.  And using ./configure --prefix=3DPATH won't help - becuase it is =


wrong - a goof up.

/usr/X11R6 is being moved away from by upstream and everyone else sane
because it's beyond a joke nowadays. Many things -- not just Xft;
fontconfig, Xcursor, Xrender, et al -- are in /usr/lib now. You haven't
been near specific enough. What failed? What 'goofed'? Which installer
were you using? Did you do a complete dist-upgrade? If so, why is your
xlibs package still at 4.1.0-16, which is the woody version?

Closing this bug report as utterly bogus and invalid unless submitter
provides a compelling rationale otherwise.

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

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)



Reply to: