On Son, 2003-02-02 at 16:45, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > >> Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Shouldn't be a problem because nothing outside of the xfree86 source > > package should depend on the xlibmesa packages directly (or deal with > > it)? > > You just have to convince apt that replacing the then dissapeared foo3 > by foo1 just because the later also provides libgl1. You have to > resort to some trick to convince it to do the upgrade.
Yes, that would need to be done once when moving to a sane name, whereas it needs to be done every time the number after xlibmesa is bumped, right? > > My point is that the semantics of the libgl1 virtual package have > > changed from 'libGL.so.1 and libGLU.so.1' to 'libGL.so.1 only', which > > breaks packages that depend on libgl1 only but need libGLU. Did you > > consider this, and what were your plans to handle it? > > Oh, that. I thought that the mail I wrote a couple of days ago ended > up in -x, too. Didn't seem to get it. > Basically the package providing libgl1 will depend on libglu1 for a > while to aid with upgrades. When packages are recompiled, they get a > dependency on libglu1 if they use it. Once most packages are > recompiled (for whatever reason), we file bugs on the rest. Okay. I still think introducing a new virtual package and maybe dummy libgl1 packages depending on that and libglu1 would have been better, but I guess this mostly works. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
