Re: Please put xlibs back (was Re: X Strike Force X.Org X11 SVN commit: r1481 - branches/modular/debian/xorg/debian)
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 09:14:05PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:52:05PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 07:45:35PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 09:28:31PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin wrote:
> > > > Author: dnusinow
> > > > Date: 2006-03-20 21:28:29 -0500 (Mon, 20 Mar 2006)
> > > > New Revision: 1481
> > > >
> > > > Modified:
> > > > branches/modular/debian/xorg/debian/changelog
> > > > branches/modular/debian/xorg/debian/control
> > > > Log:
> > > > * At the urgent request of the release and ftp teams, xlibs must die.
> > >
> > > Can this please be reconsidered? AFAICT we need it to purge conffiles
> > > from /etc/X11/xkb.
> >
> > 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.
> > 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.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: