Re: Scary message on new installations
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:53:56PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 12:06:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 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.
> Right, but it might be a sufficient hint so that aptitude, and maybe apt,
> will do the right thing.
This change *will* be sufficient to allow aptitude and apt to do the right
thing *in a greater number of cases*. Just how large a coverage this will
give, I can't say -- the only good way to find out is to try it and see what
upgrade testers have to say about it.
> Ok... I'll lower the priority of the note to medium and add the
> xserver-xfree86 dummy package. Hopefully that'll be sufficient. As
> discussed elsewhere, I'd prefer to use NEWS.Debian, but it won't be shown
> to the user in this case, so a medium priority debconf abusing note should
What do you mean, "in this case"? I don't see why NEWS.Debian is any less
appropriate here than in other cases. Is there some concern about
apt-listchanges not listing NEWS files for newly-installed packages?
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.