On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 03:55 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Hi Drew, > > A bit of followup to my bug report. > > 1) You'll need to either epoch xprt or have the xprt package use a > different version number from the rest of your source package[1], since > 0.1.0.alpha1-8 is less than 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10. (It's also less than > 4.1.0-16[blah], the woody versions of xprt.) >
Oh yeah, I hadn't thought about that side of it. I'd go with an epoch, I think. I'll plan to move the binary into xprt, making xprt-xprintorg the dummy package, retiring it once mozilla and x-window-system change their dependencies to xprt. > Daniel Stone has just emailed debian-x asserting that "the head of Xprint > development is now X.Org", which is not a statement that is challenged in > any way by my move to drop xprt from the XFree86 packages, but that's > Daniel for you. > Daniel raised something like this last time. I tried to explain that xprt-xprintorg *is* X.org's Xprint. (in fact our current 0.1.0.alpha1 is Xprint CVS from Xorg 6.8.2). Bug fixes to the X.org CVS tree will make it to the Xprint head (and therefore into xprt-xprintorg) before they get to the stable X.org branch. Someone might say they want strictly the same Xprint from the stable version of X.org, but I don't think anything is really gained by this. As Daniel himself points out, we are heading towards a modularised X.org, in which case Xprint will continue to release its own stable versions in its own time. So we might as well start that now. Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
