Anders Kaseorg wrote: > Furthermore, users who read the upstream Xen documentation (#508139), as > well as programs that try to use the Xen binaries (#481105) or libraries > (#507186), get thrown off by the alternate layout. > > Is there actually a use case for installing multiple versions of Xen on > the same system? Perhaps it is time to reconsider them and use a layout > closer to upstream’s? Or if not, perhaps the patches can be sent upstream > and integrated as a supported configure option, so that Debian does not > need to maintain an unsupported layout separately? > > Anders
I cannot agree more with the above. Related to the above also: I even asked the Xen team the request to add the following 2 symlinks, that would have solve many issues in numerous software: ln -s /etc/alternatives/xen-default /usr/lib/xen ln -s /usr/lib/xen-default/lib/python/xen \ /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/xen I was told that it was a stupid thing, and my bug was tagged "wontfix". I'd like to understand exactly WHY the packager took this decision. This makes absolutely no sense to me, and also, I don't think that being a maintainer gives you the rights to decide for everyone using the distribution. This was a very big concern for us, and I was really disappointed to see the reaction of the Debian Xen team, not considering the report, and being quite unfriendly. Also, if there's no /usr/lib/xen, what is the point of having a /etc/alternatives/xen-default? I'd like to understand. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org