On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:07:09PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 11:40:38AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > Today, "apt-get dselect-upgrade" wants to remove several packages, > > e.g. "xfs", presumably due to new conflicts by xorg. > > I checked for a bug report on "xfs" and found none. Have all the > > maintainers of newly-uninstallable packages been notified > > about this change? > > Or should I file bug reports? If so, what is the fix: is a new > > revision sufficient or does some action need to be taken? > Not yet, the realization that it was a necessity kind of came on too fast > for me. Actually, binNMU's for all the packages should, in theory, be > sufficient for a fix. No, this is *only* the case for packages which use imake, because those packages will correctly land in /usr instead of /usr/X11R6 following a binNMU. But imake isn't usable yet AFAIK, and not all the affected packages use imake. > We'll be installing a compatibility symlink in place of /usr/X11R6/bin > (to /usr/bin) and packages should be able to install cleanly. We just need > to make sure they do so after x11-common sets that symlink up. Installing files to /usr/X11R6/bin when /usr/X11R6/bin is a symlink is broken and wrong; it leaves dpkg with an inconsistent view of package contents, and will leave orphaned files behind if x11-common's symlink ever goes away before the package installing to /usr/X11R6/bin does. -- 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/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
