On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 08:53:05AM +1100, Neale Banks wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Branden Robinson wrote: > > [...] > > > The question is: Since the last xlib6g packages are empty packages > > > anyways... do you really need to Conflict: it? > > > > I'd really like to force them off the system. > > Could conflicting with xlib6g less-than say 4.3.0 help in getting us to a > workable compromise? I don't think this will help, as I *have* to Conflict with versions of the package that shipped the same files as the library packages that are shipped today, and since xlib6g was a shared library package, there will be versioned dependencies on it -- the same versions I have to conflict with. > If that's allowable, then hopefully it would force the old versions off > the system but allow those of us who need it to have a fake xlib6g > versioned >=4.3.0 (Hmmm... hopefully none of these legacy apps have a > problematic versioned dependency on xlib6g). The probably *all* do. > > Would it be so awful to rebuild some of these packages that haven't > > been updated since potato? > > In an ideal world, that'd be the solution. But for obscure needs it's > sometimes more trouble than it's worth (not to mention that just > rebuilding the app would be half-doing the job - it it's something big > like a browser then we probably want to fix application-level bugs too). > > The real solution is to remove the need for the legacy app (in my case a > javascript-driven webpage that "just works" with an elderly Netscape but > doesn't work with anything else I've tried so far :-( ). Did you see my remark about Konqueror's User-Agent masquerading feature? -- G. Branden Robinson | There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux | Lincoln today -- just a rumor that branden@debian.org | is put about by people who have http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | nowhere to live. -- G. L. Murfin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature