On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 21:21 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 02:48:08PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:29:37 +0100, David Nusinow wrote:
> >
> > > xserver-xorg-video-apm (1:1.1.1-4) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
> > >
> > > diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
> > > index 0134af2..258ca99 100644
> > > --- a/debian/control
> > > +++ b/debian/control
> > > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Standards-Version: 3.7.2
> > >
> > > Package: xserver-xorg-video-apm
> > > Architecture: any
> > > -Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, xserver-xorg-core (>=
> > > 2:1.2.0)
> > > +Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, ${xserver:Depends}
> > > Provides: xserver-xorg-video-1.1
> > > Replaces: xserver-xorg (<< 6.8.2-35)
> > > Description: X.Org X server -- APM display driver
> >
> > We also need to change the Provides back to xserver-xorg-video-1.0, to
> > match the Depends of the server.
>
> If it's built against server 1.2, which it will be in this case, then it's
> providing ABI 1.1.
Wrong again. :( The driver doesn't provide an ABI at all, the server
does. The Provides: xserver-xorg-video-1.0 is a packaging trick to say
'I need an ABI compatible with 1.0 (as opposed to 0.x, which was
represented by xserver-xorg-video)', which is still satisfied by ABI 1.x
(with x >= <minor of server built against>, which is handled by the
serverwhateverver file).
> 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.
Possibly, but the correct Provides will remain xserver-xorg-video-1.0
until the ABI bumps to 2.x. In hindsight, it might have been slightly
less confusing to call it xserver-xorg-video-1.x.
P.S. We'll have the same fun with the input driver ABI once
input-hotplug makes it into a release.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
