[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: xserver-xorg-video-apm: Changes to 'debian-experimental'

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:22:47AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 21:21:11 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > If it's built against server 1.2, which it will be in this case, then it's
> > providing ABI 1.1. 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.
> > 
> The ABI provided by xserver 1.2 and 1.3 is compatible with the one
> provided by xserver 1.1.  This means that drivers built for xserver 1.1
> will still work with 1.2, so we want them to keep being installable.
> The xserver-xorg-video-* virtual package is similar to a library SONAME,
> which means that you *don't* bump it when the ABI changes compatibly.
> Maybe xserver-xorg-video-1.0 should have been xserver-xorg-video-1, to
> make it clear that only the major ABI number was significant there.
> When the ABI changes incompatibly, we'll also need to add conflicts on
> earlier driver versions in the server, and this is something we
> shouldn't do when it's not needed.

Right, I hadn't planned on conflicting after our last discussion. I'll
probably rename the provides to just 1 and be done with it. You and Michel
had a much simpler vision of the thing than I did. It'll be clearer and
less hassle.

> If you want the "Provides" field for drivers to be automatically
> generated, you'll also have to provide mechanisms for both the input and
> video driver, which the latest upload doesn't.  But in both cases, only
> the major number is significant.

Yeah, I specifically left that open. I'll add the infrastructure and try
and get the input drivers updated for it over the next few days.

> Hoping to have somewhat reduced the confusion,

I'm not sure the confusion was as great as you guys think :-)

 - David Nusinow

Reply to: