Package: xlibs
Version: 4.3.0-7
Severity: important
I suspect that the xlibs upgrade in testing is going to cause a
substantial number of old programs to be deleted, including xv and
Java 1.3. At least those two are important to me, hence the severity.
I am using the testing release. (Whether this is sarge, woody, sid,
potato, or priceofteainchina, I don't know and don't know how to find
out.) I did an apt-get -yud dist-upgrade
The result:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
communicator-base-473 communicator-nethelp-473
communicator-smotif-473 communicator-spellchk-473
fonttastic-glibc-2.1 gwm j2sdk1.3 kaffe libwraster1 netscape-base-4
netscape-base-473 netscape-java-473 netscape-smotif-473
wine-wpo2000-glibc-2.1 wpo2000-minimal wpo2000-minimal-std xf86setup
xlib6g xproxy xv
The following NEW packages will be installed:
lam4 libice6 libsm6 libx11-6 libxext6 libxft1 libxi6 libxmu6
libxmuu1 libxp6 libxpm4 libxrandr2 libxt6 libxtrap6 libxtst6 libxv1
xlibs-data
The following packages will be upgraded:
apt apt-utils blacs-mpich-dev blacs1-lam blacs1-mpich doc-linux-html
doc-linux-text eject iptables lam-runtime libdb4.1 libdps1
libgpg-error0 libhdf5-serial-1.6.1-0 libmetacity0 libxaw6 libxaw7
libxcursor1 libxft2 libxrender1 metacity netpipe-lam netpipe-mpich
netpipe-pvm netpipe-tcp scalapack-mpich-dev scalapack1-lam
scalapack1-mpich scalapack1-pvm twm xbase-clients xdm xfonts-100dpi
xfonts-75dpi xfonts-base xfonts-cyrillic xfonts-scalable
xfree86-common xfs xlibs xmh xnest xprt xserver-common xterm xutils
xvfb
Note the large list of packages to be removed, including xlib6g (which
apparently a number of other packages depend on),
fonttastic-glibc-2.1, j2sdk1.3, xf86setup, xv, et cetera.
By going into dselect manually, I see
Dependency/conflict resolution - introduction.
One or more of your choices have raised a conflict or dependency
problem - ...
xlib6g's conflicts are listed as
xlibs conflicts with xlib6g
libwraster1 depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.6-4)
fonttastic-glibc-2.1 depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1)
j2sdk1.3 depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.6-4)
xv depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.6)
communicator-smotif-473 depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.6-4)
wine-wpo2000-glibc-2.1 depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1)
xf86setup depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.6-4)
xproxy depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.6-4)
netscape-base-4 depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.6-4)
kaffe depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.6)
gwm depends on xlib6g (>= 3.3.5)
but xlibs says just
xlibs conflicts with xlib6g
dselect reports xlibs as being Inst.ver 4.2.1-12.1 and Avail.ver
4.3.0-7, and
xlibs - X Window System client libraries metapackage and XKB data
This package smooths upgrades from Debian 3.0 by depending on the
individual library packages into which each shared object formerly
contained in this package has been split.
This package is only depended upon by packages that haven't yet
been compiled against the new shared library packages. ...
xlib6g says Inst.ver and Avail.ver are both 4.2.1-3, and
xlib6g - pseudopackage providing X libraries
This package smooths the migration from Debian 2.2 by depending on
xlibs and libxaw6. This pseudopackage is only depended upon by
packages that haven't yet been compiled against the newer X
library packages.
This package also conflicts with packages that are no longer
supported in Debian and do not comply with the Debian app-defaults
policy. (In some cases, the functionality of these old packages
has been absorbed into other packages in Debian 3.0 ("woody").)
I don't know what the state of the packages was before this apt-get --
I am not familiar with the apt/dpkg/dselect system. My guess is that
the latest xlibs update in testing now says that it conflicts with
xlib6g, so dselect/apt-get decided that it needs to get rid of xlib6g
and everything that depends on it.
I was taken aback at the number of packages to be lost. Though many
of those packages are obsolete or things that I don't use (so far as I
know), I would much rather not lose xv and Java 1.3 (and possibly
kaffe), at least. Netscape 4.73 is nice for compatibility testing.
Is it really necessary for Debian (or very useful) to blow them out of
the water?
--
Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; work is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
