Re: xserver-xorg-video-apm: Changes to 'debian-experimental'
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 08:11:18AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 21:21 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 02:48:08PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:29:37 +0100, David Nusinow wrote:
> > >
> > > > xserver-xorg-video-apm (1:1.1.1-4) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
> > > > index 0134af2..258ca99 100644
> > > > --- a/debian/control
> > > > +++ b/debian/control
> > > > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Standards-Version: 3.7.2
> > > >
> > > > Package: xserver-xorg-video-apm
> > > > Architecture: any
> > > > -Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, xserver-xorg-core (>= 2:1.2.0)
> > > > +Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, ${xserver:Depends}
> > > > Provides: xserver-xorg-video-1.1
> > > > Replaces: xserver-xorg (<< 6.8.2-35)
> > > > Description: X.Org X server -- APM display driver
> > >
> > > We also need to change the Provides back to xserver-xorg-video-1.0, to
> > > match the Depends of the server.
> >
> > If it's built against server 1.2, which it will be in this case, then it's
> > providing ABI 1.1.
>
> Wrong again. :( The driver doesn't provide an ABI at all, the server
> does. The Provides: xserver-xorg-video-1.0 is a packaging trick to say
> 'I need an ABI compatible with 1.0 (as opposed to 0.x, which was
> represented by xserver-xorg-video)', which is still satisfied by ABI 1.x
> (with x >= <minor of server built against>, which is handled by the
> serverwhateverver file).
Ok, this makes sense. I mis-spoke but I think I understood.
> > I think we need to have another xsfbs improvement that
> > automatically generates the correct Provides: here too. If we're going to
> > automate this, it should go all the way.
>
> Possibly, but the correct Provides will remain xserver-xorg-video-1.0
> until the ABI bumps to 2.x. In hindsight, it might have been slightly
> less confusing to call it xserver-xorg-video-1.x.
Yeah, we could switch it to 1.x or something. The way I had planned was to
do it more finely grained, with the server requiring xserver-xorg-video-1.0
|| xserver-xorg-video-1.1, and so on as the minor versions get incremented.
Now that we're discussing it, I'm not sure that's as useful though.
> P.S. We'll have the same fun with the input driver ABI once
> input-hotplug makes it into a release.
Yeah, I haven't implemented it, but it shouldn't be too hard to do. I
specifically named the substvar to viddriver because I was thinking about
this. Some minor updates to the serverabiver file and xsfbs should get the
job done.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: