On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:48:31AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Since this warning note has been added specifically because the xserver is > > being removed in situations we don't want it to, and the removal is being > > caused by a new package that didn't exist in sarge, it is indeed very > > difficult to detect the difference between an upgrade and a new install. > > For d-i's purposes, preseeding this d-i note into oblivion is an option, but > > it would be much nicer if someone could figure out how to keep the xserver > > from being removed on upgrade in the first place. > Would putting back xserver-xfree86 as a transitional package suffice? Since > I don't know how to reproduce this problem locally, my best guess is that > the server gets removed due to the conflict with x11-common and then > nothing is able to install the new one because xserver-xorg doesn't exist > to be marked for upgrade. Putting back an empty xserver-xfree86 that pulls > in xserver-xorg should suffice in this corner case, letting us remove the > note all together. It is still valid for aptitude to remove xserver-xfree86, even as a transitional package, if the old version is conflicted with. There's nothing in our packaging system that lets you mark a particular package as "not to be removed on upgrade". A dummy xserver-xfree86 package may fix this for most users, though. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature