[I'm subscribed; no need to CC me.] Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 11:59 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >>I have created Debian packages of all the components in modular xlibs >>CVS. These also include packages of the X C Binding (XCB) and >>interchangeable packages of Xlib with and without XCB as the transport >>layer. > > I think libx11-xcb-dev should provide libx11-dev though. Without that, > you can't switch to libx11-6-xcb with anything installed that depends on > libx11-dev. That is indeed an issue, but libx11-xcb-dev can't provide libx11-dev. If it did, then applications build-depending on libx11-dev might get libx11-xcb-dev and libx11-6-xcb, build against them, and end up with a "Depends: libx11-6-xcb" rather than "Depends: libx11-6 | libx11-6-xcb". (Applications which build against libx11-6-xcb might be using the XCB interoperation functionality in xcl.h such as XCBConnectionOfDisplay, so the shlibs for the XCB version specify a dependency on libx11-6-xcb.) I'd love to hear any suggestion on how to fix this problem. One possible solution Jamey Sharp and I are considering as XCB upstream is to split the XCB-specific bits into a separate library, such as libX11-XCB.so, to attempt to ensure that either libX11.so would work; then both shlibs files could specify both libraries as possible dependencies, but the shlibs for libX11-XCB.so would require libx11-xcb1 which would depend on libx11-6-xcb. However, this still wouldn't solve the problem of static linking, nor would it solve the problem that libX11-XCB still needs to poke at libX11 in ways only possible with the XCB version of libX11. The other solution is that after sarge is released, I could get the handful of -dev packages that depend directly on libx11-dev to change that dependency to libx11-dev | libx11-xcb-dev. The long-term solution is that XCB will become the default transport for libX11, and the two parallel sets of packages can just go away. >>If you find any issues with these packages other than those listed in >>the known issues section of the README, please report them to me. > > I also think the packages that don't contain any binaries should be > Architecture: all. Will fix soon; thanks. (I hadn't yet dug through and figured out which headers were arch-independent.) >>Do not report bugs in these packages to the Debian bug-tracking system. > > You could take care of reportbug users at least via /usr/share/bug/ . I've already taken care of reportbug users via a Bugs: field in the control file. > P.S. I can provide powerpc binaries if you're interested. That would be great; I'll need to set up my repository to handle multiple architectures first, though. (I was thinking of switching to mini-dinstall or similar anyway.) - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature