On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:42:18PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:12:08AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > David,
> > On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:32:09PM -0700, David Nusinow wrote: > > > * Conflict with old versions of xfonts-base. Thanks Toni Mueller. > > > (closes: #367339) > > Why is this file in the xfonts-encodings package, rather than in xfonts-base > > given that all packages requiring the old encodings.dir have a dependency on > > xfonts-base? > > If it does need to be in xfonts-encodings for some reason, this should > > certainly be a Replaces: instead of a Conflicts:. > So these encodings files were originally shipped in xfonts-base. The > encodings.dir is just one of the files which would conflict, although with > the new location I don't know if we'll actually see the other conflicts > directly. None of the other files involved would require a conflicts or replaces, no, > I'm not sure why upstream decided to split the encodings out from the > fonts, but I'd rather stick with their decision. We already violate this > with the rgb database and the bundling of apps, so it's not a huge deal to > merge xfonts-encodings back with xfonts-base, but I'm not sure what we'd > gain by doing so. Two benefits: - simpler and easier to understand debian/control file for xfonts-encodings - the packages which expect /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/encodings/encodings.dir depend on xfonts-base, but the file is now twice removed from this package (xfonts-base Depends: xfonts-utils Depends: xfonts-encodings), making it more likely to get dinged accidentally Given that this is all in the debian/ dir, I don't really think upstream's split is a big factor, and any effort to KISS in X pays for itself many times over in the long run. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
