Bill Wohler wrote:
> Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 07:58:09PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> > > The bug affects only a tiny minority of users: I've seen three
> > > reports on d-u counting mine so far.
> >
> > Make me number 4, unless you've already counted my comments from two
> > months ago.
>
> Make me number 5.
Number 6. ("I am not a number! I am a free man!")
dexconf trashed my mouse configuration, threw out all references to my
TrueType fonts, and re-enabled the font server even though it was no
longer installed.
This wouldn't have been so bad if there were a way to get the right
configuration into debconf so that it would regenerate XFConfig86-4
properly. The problem was, that wasn't possible, as far as I could tell.
dpkg-reconfigure (xserver-xfree86|xfree86-common) didn't ask enough of
the necessary questions (aside from "Do you want to manage XF86Config-4
manually", which sort of side-steps the real issue, to wit, that the
automatic configuration tools were utterly inadequate).
> > And I still say that this isn't needed. If an XFConfig-4 already exists,
> > the default should be to assume that it works and leave it alone instead
> > of trying to create a new one to replace it.
>
> If you were running stable that would be the case. But you're not.
>
> Remember than when woody becomes stable, users will have to upgrade
> from XFree 3.x to XFree 4.x so their configuration files will change
> anyway.
If the config script can't tell the difference between a version 3
config file and one for version 4, it's pretty dumb. The filenames
aren't even the same. I agree with Dave: there's no need to generate an
XF86Config-4 file if one is already there (which won't be the case in an
upgrade from version 3).
> The X configuration has come a long, long way and is very
> nearly automatic, and that's a good thing.
It doesn't work well enough to be useful, though, and that's a bad thing
that outweighs the good. For now, at least.
Craig
