On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:21:32PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Daniel Stone said: > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:03:12PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > This has been an ongoing thing, I thought, and could be solved with a > > > dpkg-divert, rather than a conflicts line. > > > > Yes, as nvidia-glx already does for libGLcore. It hasn't updated its > > diversions for xserver-xorg yet, so it spuriously diverts libGLcore, > > and fails to divert libglx. > > > > However, it has been asserted that this is an xserver-xorg bug, so I'll > > still be investigating ways we can somehow fix this in xserver-xorg. > > Right, I was talking about having xserver-xorg do it as well. Let me > rephrase a bit: > > I believe the nvidia packages in debian are doing it right now because > they had to be coinstallable with xserver-xfree86. Since xorg is the > new kid on the block, so to speak, it can no longer claim "I owned the > file first", so it is an xorg bug at least partly.
I disagree, a package in main should have ownership priority over a package in non-free, especially a package that only works on x86. Not sure, but should the nvidia-glx thingy not need to be upgraded at the same time as X is installed, and will it then not do the right thing ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
