On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:22:47AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 21:21:11 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > > If it's built against server 1.2, which it will be in this case, then it's > > providing ABI 1.1. I think we need to have another xsfbs improvement that > > automatically generates the correct Provides: here too. If we're going to > > automate this, it should go all the way. > > > The ABI provided by xserver 1.2 and 1.3 is compatible with the one > provided by xserver 1.1. This means that drivers built for xserver 1.1 > will still work with 1.2, so we want them to keep being installable. > The xserver-xorg-video-* virtual package is similar to a library SONAME, > which means that you *don't* bump it when the ABI changes compatibly. > Maybe xserver-xorg-video-1.0 should have been xserver-xorg-video-1, to > make it clear that only the major ABI number was significant there. > When the ABI changes incompatibly, we'll also need to add conflicts on > earlier driver versions in the server, and this is something we > shouldn't do when it's not needed.
Right, I hadn't planned on conflicting after our last discussion. I'll probably rename the provides to just 1 and be done with it. You and Michel had a much simpler vision of the thing than I did. It'll be clearer and less hassle. > If you want the "Provides" field for drivers to be automatically > generated, you'll also have to provide mechanisms for both the input and > video driver, which the latest upload doesn't. But in both cases, only > the major number is significant. Yeah, I specifically left that open. I'll add the infrastructure and try and get the input drivers updated for it over the next few days. > Hoping to have somewhat reduced the confusion, I'm not sure the confusion was as great as you guys think :-) - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
