I'm afraid I do not understand your report. On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:01:38PM -0400, John D. Hendrickson wrote: > Package: xlibs > Version: 4.1.0-16 > Severity: important On what grounds do you justify this severity? > Two things. One, xlibs did not install files correctly. "Not correct" is a broad term, and it does not tell me what your expectations were, or how the package failed to meet them. Can you please list all of the files you assert it installed "wrongly", and explain how? For each file, please indicate: 1) was the file installed to the expected location 2) was the file installed at all 3) was the file corrupt upon being unpacked > Two, all X packages now require a new directory structure (which I hate). I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean here. What directory structure are you referring to? > Anyway the installer does nothing to provide this new directory > structure. What installer? Debian-installer? The woody (Debian 3.0) boot-floppies? I note your bug report is against the (non-security-updated) woody packages of xlibs. I should therefore take this opportunity to point out that your stable system is missing security updates, which I urge you to install as soon as possible. Please see <URL: http://security.debian.org/ > for more information. > I made a script which does this which has done this for me on several > machines. Could you send this bug report the script, or tell us what it does? > Just did a "dist-upgrade" to sarge Okay. The dist-upgrade does not appear to have completed, as the version of xlibs you're reporting this bug against is not a version that has been in sarge for a very long time. > for libs I had xlib's /usr/lib/libXft.so and a couple others in /usr/lib Okay. > These are xlibs, not usr libs, they shouldn't even have links into /usr/lib I don't understand your assertion. What's your definition of an "xlib"? > After remaking the links the installer goofed, it worked. Somehow the > installer doesn't take into account the present / previous state when making > its links. You have lost me here. The only previous state the installer encounters is either erased or not relevant. Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by "installer". In Debian, when we say "installer", we mean "the tool the makes a Debian system from scratch on your computer". I.e., either you didn't have Debian on the system at all previously; you're abandoning a previous Debian installation in favor of a fresh installation, discarding the previous one; or you're installing multiple parallel installations of Debian to the same computer (rare). > I found the ONLY reason libXft need to be in /usr/lib is due to gtk. libXft is in /usr/lib because: 1) It is a library; 2) It is not needed at boot time. If it were, it would go in /lib. 3) It is maintained separately from the the X Window System. Xft is an interesting case due to political and technological reasons. Either /usr/lib or /usr/X11R6/lib would have been a valid choice at the time woody was released. Presently, /usr/lib is the right choice, as we no longer build the current version of libXft from the XFree86 package, but instead from its own source package, called "xft". > While all else of gnome correctly uses X11R6/lib, gtk uses /usr/lib, > oddly. What's more correct about /usr/X11R6/lib over /usr/lib? The Debian Policy Manual is explicit about this issue: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-customized-programs.html#s11.8.7 > Fix that and you fix allot of confusion. What's confusing about having shared libraries in several different places on the system? Alternatively, what's uniquely confusing about xlibs or libxft in this regard? Unix systems have been coping with both /lib and /usr/lib since well before I became a Unix user over ten years ago. > The ./configure for gtk is just flat wrong. And using ./configure > --prefix=PATH won't help - becuase it is really wrong - a goof up. It sounds to me like you are reporting a bug in one of our GTK+ library packages. Nothing I do with libxft or xlibs can fix a bug in GTK+. To reiterate, I do not understand the nature of your problem report; you seem to have several related complaints. I might be able to understand better if, for each problem you perceive: 1) state in specific terms what you expect the package's behavior to be 2) indicate specifically how the package failed to meet those expectations Please don't use terms like "not correct" or "wrong"; we're still in the fact-gathering stage of this problem report, not the assessment phase. Prematurely evaluating the situation will not help us to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Thanks for your time. -- G. Branden Robinson | If God had intended for man to go Debian GNU/Linux | about naked, we would have been branden@debian.org | born that way. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature