On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:04:20 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> writes: > > > I was considering moving xserver-xorg-core's Conflicts to Breaks, but > > that seems to introduce new lintian warnings about > > 'breaks-without-version'. > > What's the motivation here? I thought Conflicts was more correct in the > case where there isn't a problem with some specific version of a package > but rather a basic incompatibility between two packages. > > Hm, is it that the versioned ABI metapackages represent specific versions > of other packages and you get better upgrade handling this way? (Is that > measured or theoretical? There's a long Policy thread on this topic, and > the question seems to be strongly debated.) > Drivers are dlopen()ed by the X server, and the ABI changes with pretty much every new server version, so we had the drivers Provide the ABI they were built for, and the server Conflict with old ABI virtual packages. There's no filesystem conflict, so AIUI Breaks is preferred in that case. We're trying to move to a scheme where the X server Provides a virtual ABI package instead, and the drivers depend on that; we won't need Conflicts/Breaks then. But for now I still need to prevent co-installation of incompatible old driver and new server... Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature