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

Bug#364475: xorg: replace Depends: "xterm" with "xterm | x-terminal-emulator"

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 08:17:24PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2006-04-23 Ren? van Bevern <rvb@debian.org> wrote:
> > Package: xorg
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Version: 1:7.0.14
> > The xorg metapackage currently depends on xterm.  Could the dependency
> > on xterm please be replaced by a dependency on "xterm |
> > x-terminal-emulator"? This would give users the convenience of
> > installing X.Org via the "xorg" package without needing to install
> > "xterm" but a terminal emulator of their choice,
> > e.g. rxvt-unicode.
> > Previously, "x-window-system-core" provided this functionality, which
> > is now provided by "xorg".

Done. Thanks for your report. It'll be in the next upload.

> Hello,
> As the former x-window-system-core and xorg are identical (except for
> the additional xterm dependency, which imho really should allow
> alternatives) and as the name x-window-system-core is generic (it is
> not named "xfree86") I wonder whether the xorg package should not
> simply be dropped in favour of x-window-system-core.
> There are currently no reverse depencies on xorg (except
> x-window-system-*) in Debian  so it *still* could be done without pain.

No. There's a very good reason I chose to unify the metapackages under a
new name and that's that the old names were confusing crap. People who have
some idea of what to expect but haven't been brainwashed by us yet
naturally look for the "xorg" package. I've seen this time and time again
doing user support on irc. The people who already knew about
x-window-system(-core) will have no trouble adapting to the new package

Furthermore, the only people who want the stuff provided by x-window-system
that's not provided by -core are fully capable of installing it themselves.
So while the old names may have been more technically correct (we're not
actually installing all of X.org here) they are far less intuitive.

 - David Nusinow

Reply to: