On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:53:56PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 12:06:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:48:31AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > Since this warning note has been added specifically because the xserver > > > > is > > > > being removed in situations we don't want it to, and the removal is > > > > being > > > > caused by a new package that didn't exist in sarge, it is indeed very > > > > difficult to detect the difference between an upgrade and a new install.
> > > > For d-i's purposes, preseeding this d-i note into oblivion is an > > > > option, but > > > > it would be much nicer if someone could figure out how to keep the > > > > xserver > > > > from being removed on upgrade in the first place. > > > Would putting back xserver-xfree86 as a transitional package suffice? > > > Since > > > I don't know how to reproduce this problem locally, my best guess is that > > > the server gets removed due to the conflict with x11-common and then > > > nothing is able to install the new one because xserver-xorg doesn't exist > > > to be marked for upgrade. Putting back an empty xserver-xfree86 that pulls > > > in xserver-xorg should suffice in this corner case, letting us remove the > > > note all together. > > It is still valid for aptitude to remove xserver-xfree86, even as a > > transitional package, if the old version is conflicted with. There's > > nothing in our packaging system that lets you mark a particular package as > > "not to be removed on upgrade". A dummy xserver-xfree86 package may fix > > this for most users, though. > Right, but it might be a sufficient hint so that aptitude, and maybe apt, > will do the right thing. This change *will* be sufficient to allow aptitude and apt to do the right thing *in a greater number of cases*. Just how large a coverage this will give, I can't say -- the only good way to find out is to try it and see what upgrade testers have to say about it. > Ok... I'll lower the priority of the note to medium and add the > xserver-xfree86 dummy package. Hopefully that'll be sufficient. As > discussed elsewhere, I'd prefer to use NEWS.Debian, but it won't be shown > to the user in this case, so a medium priority debconf abusing note should > suffice. What do you mean, "in this case"? I don't see why NEWS.Debian is any less appropriate here than in other cases. Is there some concern about apt-listchanges not listing NEWS files for newly-installed packages? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
