Bug#375667: x11-common and xserver-xorg unupgradeable due to mutual deathgrip
Daniel Stone writes ("Re: Bug#375667: x11-common and xserver-xorg unupgradeable due to mutual deathgrip"):
> crap [in] /usr/X11R6 [and] hardcoded paths into /usr/X11R6.
Right, so we have to make those paths keep working.
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 05:41:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > /usr/bin/X11 is a bit tricky. I think the right answer is to have
> > some preinst move all of the binaries from /usr/bin/X11 to /usr/bin
> > and then sort out the links but this should be done with care. There
> > should be no need for any Conflicts.
>
> Happily mangling binaries from other packages? Ugh.
I think that the results would be correct. How about I do some tests
and get back to you ?
Problems I'm expecting:
- I think file conflicts won't be reported by dpkg between
two packages providing /usr/bin/foo and /usr/bin/X11/foo; instead,
the later-installed file will simply silently overwrite the earlier
one and deinstalling the overwritten package will make the file
disappear. This is not ideal but probably liveable with. I'll
have to check the actual behaviour.
- dpkg -S will still produce lies mentioning /usr/bin/X11
some of the time.
- The thing that moves /usr/bin/X11/* to /usr/bin/. should make
sure it doesn't overwrite any files. It also needs to be
idempotent which will take some care to write.
> > I'm not sure I understand why it is necessary to adjust old systems to
> > conform to the new standard wrt {lib,include}. Why can't they just be
> > left with the symlinks pointing to where new systems have directories
> > and vice versa ?
>
> I dind't bother transitioning /usr/X11R6 for Ubuntu, I just left it
> hanging.
Right. So you think it's fine to leave old installs with links in
/usr/{lib,include}/X11, and have new installs have the links the other
way round ? That's fine and unless there's something I don't know
about very little should go wrong.
It's also possible to shuffle stuff about but quite hard to do
correctly.
Ian.
Reply to: