Re: xserver-xorg-video-all vs. -1.0 distinction breaks on upgrades to -2

[Josip Rodin <joy@debbugs.entuzijast.net>]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 10:32:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> xserver-xorg-video-nv used to provide the xserver-xorg-video-1.0 virtual
> package, and now the new version provides the xserver-xorg-video-2 virtual
> package. But apt isn't catching on to the idea - it's ignoring the fact
> that it can obtain xserver-xorg-video-2 simply by upgrading
> xserver-xorg-video-nv. Instead it is parsing the dependency list as if it's
> in a vacuum, seeing that xserver-xorg-video-2 isn't there, and therefore
> installing xserver-xorg-video-all.
> 
> In a simple A | B dependency, package A clearly takes precedence, that's
> what the rules say. But that is oriented towards the new installs.
> On upgrades, if B is obtained a) from an already installed package, just
> a new version of it b) at a visibly smaller cost -- then that should be
> taken into consideration.
> 
> As a workaround, I'd just purge xserver-xorg and be done with it.
> But xserver-xorg-core depends on it for some reason. The reason seems
> to be http://bugs.debian.org/392295 Surely this could have been fixed
> by putting that part of code into the xserver-xorg-core package instead
> of creating a dependency which is circular?

Apparently this is discussed in http://bugs.debian.org/362313
and there's also http://bugs.debian.org/396613

I don't seem to see any reason for all that $SERVER_SYMLINK code. Why do we
still have shared/default-x-server debconf stuff if xserver-xfree86 has been
removed from lenny?

And even so, wouldn't it be wiser to (also) handle that symlink in
the xserver-xorg-core package which actually provides the
/usr/bin/Xorg binary the link points to, rather than the meta package?

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.