Re: Xorg dist upgrade troubles
On Di, 2010-06-29 at 00:04 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2010/6/28 Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>:
> > ever since etch or so, Xorg upgrades have been a bit of a pain as
> > apt/aptitude decide to uninstall driver packages instead of upgrading
> > them.
>
> ( If you want to be sure that aptitude is in the loop you want to write
> to aptitude@packages.debian.org too, but we are talking here based
> on the great upgrade test from Petter Reinholdtsen "just" about the
> current behavior of APT, doesn't we? )
>
>
> I haven't found the real cause for this problem, but for the time being
> you can add to the xserver-xorg-video-all package the following line:
> >>>>>
> Breaks: xserver-xorg-video-cyrix, xserver-xorg-video-dummy,
> xserver-xorg-video-glint, xserver-xorg-video-i810,
> xserver-xorg-video-imstt, xserver-xorg-video-nsc,
> xserver-xorg-video-radeonhd, xserver-xorg-video-tga,
> xserver-xorg-video-v4l, xserver-xorg-video-vga, xserver-xorg-video-via
> <<<<<
> (a list of all packages xserver-xorg-video-all depended on in lenny but
> no longer in squeeze). You might want to add versions to these breaks,
> also a different package is maybe a better fit for this breaks line,
> but at least in my test this caused the xorg upgrade problem to disappear.
>
>
> > The current situation looks like this:
> >
> > Package: xserver-xorg
> > Depends: xserver-xorg-core, xserver-xorg-video-all | xserver-xorg-video-${abi}
> >
> > Package: xserver-xorg-core
> > Depends: xserver-xorg
> > Conflicts: xserver-xorg-video-${oldabi}
> >
> > Package: xserver-xorg-video-foo
> > Provides: xserver-xorg-video-${abi}
> > Depends: xserver-xorg-core
>
> The conflicts is a breaks in current unstable, isn't it?
> Packages like x11-common seems to have a lot of conflicts.
> Are all of them - not only in this specific package - really needed or
> would be Breaks enough? (see also the fresh policy version 3.9.0)
> Also, xserver-xorg and xserver-xorg-core forming a dependency loop
> in your snippet.
>
> > For squeeze I'm trying to get to something like this:
> >
> > Package: xserver-xorg
> > Depends: xserver-xorg-core, xserver-xorg-video-all | xorg-driver-video
> >
> > Package: xserver-xorg-core
> > Provides: xorg-video-abi-${abi}
> >
> > Package: xserver-xorg-video-foo
> > Depends: xorg-video-abi-${abi}
> > Provides: xorg-driver-video
>
> Looks much better on first glance. :)
> But why the Depends on xserver-xorg-video-all ?
> I assume that all packages xserver-xorg-video-all depends on will
> provide xorg-driver-video so you depend on (A & B & …) | (A | B | …).
> While apt currently chooses always the first option at first if it needs
> to install something it is not guaranteed that it will do this forever or
> that any other $packagemanager will always choose the A & B & … path
I guess we can guarantee that the primary choice will always be the
first possible option in an OR-group unless one alternative is already
satisfied. Of course, it might make sense to express the evalutation
order of OR-groups more precisely in policy, probably as a "should".
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
Reply to: