Re: Please put xlibs back
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 05:42:49PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > Could we just have xkb-data(-legacy) purge them instead?
> >
> > No, our policy states that a package cannot touch conffiles of another
> > package.
>
> Yes, but that policy is mainly in place to keep packages from stomping all
> over each other's files. This is a clear case of migration of conffiles
> from one package to another, both of which are maintained by the same group
> of people who would agree to do it.
My short answer was poorly worded, sorry. I agree with you that we
should not blindly follow the policy, but take some common sense into
account.
> > > We can have them conflict the xlibs as well. Is there really a need to
> > > have an empty xlibs package just so we can use its postinst to purge
> > > the conffiles?
> >
> > IMO, yes.
>
> You also have to take in to account that the release team and ftpmaster
> really wants the xlibs package gone completely. Packages have deep old
> dependencies on it that causes britney runs to take far longer than they
> should. This is largely mitigated by changes I made earlier in the 6.9
> series, but they still want the last bits of it gone. I think it's worth
> bending policy a little to give them this.
Ok, good to know, but I still do not see how to purge /etc/X11/xkb ;)
We moved XKB files into /usr/share/X11/xkb, but if admins want to
customise their XKB layouts, they will most certainly copy
/usr/share/X11/xkb into /etc/X11/xkb and make local changes there.
Thus we want to remove files from /etc/X11/xkb only when upgrading from
xlibs. But we will provide xkb-data and xkb-data-legacy, so users
may switch from one package to another, and we do not know when xkb-data
is installed to replace xlibs.
If I follow you, xlibs is removed to force other packages to upgrade
their dependencies. This can be achieved by clearing out its Depends
field, it is IMO much cleaner.
Anyway this issue can be sorted out after modular xorg is uploaded into
unstable, it is not a blocker.
Denis
Reply to: