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
