Max et al: I've pulled the xfree86 package (and the xfree86-base, xfree86-base-threaded upgrades it depends on) from unstable and put them in expermental/jswhit/x11-system. Probably should have put them there in the first place - I apologize for that.
Ben H - I would appreciate it if you could keep the discussion more civil next time. You tend to get nasty very quickly - and I don't appreciate it. It's simply not necessary (in fact it's counterproductive). We're all on the same team here. -Jeff On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Max Horn wrote: > [...] > > >Ben: I figured that the versioned dependency on xfree86-base | > >xfree86-base-threaded would be temporary, perhaps just for the first > >revision, in order to allow people to upgrade. > > I see the logic behind it, but IMHO the costs do not warrant it, so i > agree with Ben, this should be removed again for now. > > > I believe it is the only > >way to avoid telling people to "sudo dpkg -r --force-depends", > > I agree with you, I see no way for a smooth update. Ben, this was > actually discussed here, several times, over a year ago (but both > Jeff and I discussed it briefly here recently, too), when both Jeff > and I tried to do it. > > Maybe there is a way, but neither Jeff nor I were able to find it. > > > > which in my > >opinion, is even more silly than telling them to install xfree86 twice. > > Well, I don't exactly agree. I prefer doing a --force depends to > having to wait horus and hours. ANd if you have to download the > source via a modem, it makes a difference if you have to get 40 or 80 > MB (or how big the XFree86 source is nowadays). > > > >Especially if there are binary packages available. The --force-depends is > >necessary - we've had that discussion in the past when the -threaded > >package was introduced. Ben Reed has reported a problem with apt - that > >can be fixed by removing the "Provides: xfree86-base-threaded" and > >modifying all packages that require xfree86-base-threaded to have an " | > >xfree86 " in their Depends. I'll do that tommorow if people think this is > >a workable solution. If the consensus is that it's too much of any "ugly > >hack" and an "abuse of the fink system", I'll just pull it right now in > >favor of the --force-remove "solution". > > I would say, pull it for now no matter what. We can always readd it > later, but it should be investigated first. > > > > Cheers, > > Max > -- Jeffrey S. Whitaker Phone : (303)497-6313 NOAA/OAR/CDC R/CDC1 FAX : (303)497-6449 325 Broadway Web : http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/~jsw Boulder, CO, USA 80305-3328 Office: Skaggs Research Cntr 1D-124 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
