On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:36:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
> > libxrandr2 does not need to conflict with xlibs (<< 4.3.0).
>
> I thought I had a reason for this, but if it's not documented, it
> doesn't count.
I didn't search for that documentation very thoroughly so.
I could imagine, that some version of xlibs (something like
4.3.0-0pre-something) had libXrandr 2.0 in it, but the
conflict wouldn't catch that.
The other obvious thing being libxrandr-dev. This of course
has to conflict with xlibs-dev (<< 4.3.0), for the headers,
etc. But that's not the issue here.
[...]
> > # dpkg -S libXrandr
> > xlibs-dev: /usr/X11R6/lib/libXrandr.a
[...]
> > Even that seems to work very well. (I wonder, where
> > libXrandr.so is, but that's out of the scope of this bug
> > and probably covered in some FAQ.)
>
> In Debian, .so files are generally in lib*-dev packages, not lib*.
Well, xlibs-dev (4.2.1-12.1) does only contain a .a, but
anyway, I just checked, libxrandr-dev contains the .so.
> May I ask what motivated you to try having both versions of libXrandr on
> your machine at the same time? Just curious.
The obvious answer _would_ be "I have some weird app
dynamicly linked against 1.0".
But that's not true.
My reason is a bit subtle:
I like to update only a small amount of packages at a time.
So with some luck, I can install say xbase-clients on a box
with say x from debian/stable.
This was the reasoning for setting the severity to minor,
it might be lowered to wishlist, if you have to.
Elrond
