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

Bug#573371: marked as done (xorg: server<->driver ABI deps are backwards)

Your message dated Sat, 2 Oct 2010 18:15:07 +0200
with message-id <20101002161507.GF4170@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#573371: xorg: server<->driver ABI deps are backwards
has caused the Debian Bug report #573371,
regarding xorg: server<->driver ABI deps are backwards
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
573371: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=573371
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: xorg
Version: 1:7.5+3
Severity: normal

Hey,

I'm filing this to avoid forgetting about this, and to get opinions.

The way we're currently handling the xserver ABI is a pain, because it
means we need Conflicts on older drivers, which confuses the hell out of
the package manager (aptitude is particularly bad at this iirc).

What I think would make more sense is to have the server provide
xorg-video-abi-$N (or whatever we may want to call it) and the driver
depend on that virtual abi package (in addition to the existing
serverminver dependency for minor bumps).

I'm not sure what this means for xserver-xorg's current "any driver with
the right ABI" dependency.  Maybe the drivers can keep providing an
xorg-driver virtual package (which wouldn't have to be versioned).

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> (10/03/2010):
> The way we're currently handling the xserver ABI is a pain, because
> it means we need Conflicts on older drivers, which confuses the hell
> out of the package manager (aptitude is particularly bad at this
> iirc).

AFAICT we're good now, closing.

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: