On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 02:18:56PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
You have yet to explain what will BREAK if people continue to use the old
font packages. Not in the future, RIGHT NOW.
Oh, you have yet to explain why a clock bomb is *not* a bad
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Avery Pennarun wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 02:18:56PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
You have yet to explain what will BREAK if people continue to use the old
font packages. Not in the future, RIGHT NOW.
Oh, you
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 12:42:18PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
Upgrading a system from hamm to slink should make the system to be in the
same state as if slink had been installed from scratch.
Indeed. All of my systems have remnants of base and timezone remaining.
(Actually I just discovered
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 12:42:18PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
Can you *guarantee* that the package now called xfonts-base will *always*
have the same functionality and will always be *identical* to the one
called xfntbase in hamm?
Can you *guarantee* that the package now called
Branden Robinson:
[...]
Only now do you seem to be concerned.
No, this has been a frequently asked question for some time in
debian-user. I should probably add it to the Debian FAQ.
Please, note that I'm not blaming you for not having thought about this
problem *in advance*. I just want to see
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
I reiterate my challenge. Demonstrate to me a manner in which a
hamm system upgraded to slink, which keeps the old X font and static
library packages, will be broken.
I hope you will agree that sometimes we have to think about the future.
With
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the current state of things, a Debian system which is upgraded by
dselect from hamm to slink, from slink to potato, from potato to potato+1,
and from potato+1 to potato+2 may have, say, X version 5.5, and xfonts
version 3.3.2.3-2.
Do you think
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
I reiterate my challenge. Demonstrate to me a manner in which a
hamm system upgraded to slink, which keeps the old X font and static
library packages, will be broken.
Oh, I forgot to tell you something:
I have a computer lab with 20 Debian
Oops, sorry. Bad formatting, here is the right one:
I have a computer lab with 20 Debian machines. Suppose I want to upgrade
them to slink and I want the new font packages to be installed (like most
people will also want). Do you mean that I should enter dselect and select
them by hand on each of
Raul Miller wrote:
We'll have to keep around the empty xfnt* packages indefinitely (should they
need to be created) until a better solution is available, no matter what.
Surely a small set of *empty* packages will not be a great problem
in terms of disk sapce in master.
I think you missed the
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:52:19PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
2) Branden doesn't like xfnt-* hanging around. We agree.
I don't just dislike it hanging around on people's machines, I dislike
having to keep the packages around at all, even just as compatibility
packages.
3) However, if someone
Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[snip more discussion of xfnt packages]
I'd still rather we explored alternatives.
For how much longer? I don't think I've heard of anything else that has
a chance of working. (Did I miss something?) Alternatives have been
talked about for a while
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:52:19PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
3) However, if someone were to create xfnt-* packages which *Depend* on
the corresponding xfont-* package, then the user will automatically
install the new xfont-*, which will in turn
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:59:00PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes, but if it gets to the point where someone else will do it if I don't,
then I will do it.
I'd still rather we explored alternatives.
I think it got to that point.
Well, of
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
You have yet to explain what will BREAK if people continue to use the old
font packages. Not in the future, RIGHT NOW.
Oh, you have yet to explain why a clock bomb is *not* a bad thing.
Surely, it will exploit, but not now ;-)
How will the
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:11:48PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
I don't think Branden realised that the conf/repl/prov trick will
automatically deinstall the xfnt packages. My understanding of his
objection was the ugliness of having them hang around.
I'm far, far more willing to play games with
On 23-Jan-99, 18:57 (CST), Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the meantime, please explain this to me.
C/R/P will automatically deinstall the old xfnt packages, WITHOUT
installing their replacements? Is that true of the old static libs?
No. I think one of us (quite possibly me!)
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 08:32:32PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
People were discussing the transition from the old layout to new, and
about upgrading. In particular, the fact that some packages had been
renamed, in particular xfnt-* - xfonts-* seemed to make some people
think that it was
On 23-Jan-99, 21:21 (CST), Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Assuming the user does nothing mess with those, they would eventually
be shown a Conflict Resolution screen that would show the new xfont-*
packages selected and the xfnt-* packages deselected. User should just
hit
Umm..
I still think we're talking at cross-purpose.
1) xfonts-* C/R/P xfnt-*. Yes, I knew this was true. Yes, I knew Branden
knew this :-)
2) Branden doesn't like xfnt-* hanging around. We agree.
3) However, if someone were to create xfnt-* packages which *Depend* on
the corresponding
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:18:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
Still, it is advisable to install the renamed versions of these packages
as soon as is convenient, in the event that their contents do change in
the future.
This would just postpone the problem until there is a real
Avery Pennarun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because it's such a widespread problem, we can assume that Debian 2.2's
version of APT will support package renaming in some way. That means we can
actually put off solving this problem until Debian 2.2, and even longer if
the X fonts don't change.
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 12:03:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Avery Pennarun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because it's such a widespread problem, we can assume that Debian 2.2's
version of APT will support package renaming in some way. That means we can
actually put off solving this problem
This means that we're willing to hold off on upgrades to all font packages
until the relevant apt support for package renaming is ready.
I just hope the rest of the world agrees that this is wise.
it's not. i'm new here, so i'm not sure if this is an old topoic or not, but
debian
Jonathan P Tomer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why not just have dummy packages delete themselves in postinst, if we're
going to use them?
That can be done.. but it's not quite so simple (dpkg isn't re-entrant
unless the nested invocations are read-only). I suppose the trivial
implementation would
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
(
until dpkg --remove xfntwhatever; do
sleep 120
done /var/tmp/removexfntwhatever.log 21
)
OK.
We have three solutions suggested now:
a) dummy packages (and live with them)
b) dummy packages, which self-remove
c) packages
On 23-Jan-99, 14:11 (CST), Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan P Tomer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why not just have dummy packages delete themselves in postinst, if we're
going to use them?
That can be done.. but it's not quite so simple (dpkg isn't re-entrant
unless the nested
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
Why are we going to this trouble? If you want to rename package a1 to a2,
simply make a2 conflict and replace a1 -- dselect or dpkg will do
the rest. If you want to make 'upgrade' automatic, then you'll also
need to upload a new version of the a1
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
Just thought I would bring this up one more time and run it by everyone.
This can be considered a draft of what I'd like to put in the release
notes.
[...]
Furthermore, the X font and static library packages have been renamed. The
following
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:18:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
I have proposed a very simple solution, which, in addition to the
empty xbase (I applaud that you accepted this idea), would make the X
upgrades *completely* smooth.
I've tried to say this more delicately. Obviously that's been
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:18:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
I have proposed a very simple solution, which, in addition to the
empty xbase (I applaud that you accepted this idea), would make the X
upgrades *completely* smooth.
I've tried to
Sorry to jump in like this, but this seems to only be a problem when
someone would be using apt-get exclusively. Does xbase recommend the
various other packages people expect to have? That would make it simple
enough, a person would then just need to apt-get update;apt-get
dist-upgrade then go
On 22-Jan-99 Rafael Kitover wrote:
Sorry to jump in like this, but this seems to only be a problem when
someone would be using apt-get exclusively. Does xbase recommend the
various other packages people expect to have? That would make it simple
enough, a person would then just need to apt-get
Shaleh wrote:
On 22-Jan-99 Rafael Kitover wrote:
Sorry to jump in like this, but this seems to only be a problem when
someone would be using apt-get exclusively. Does xbase recommend the
various other packages people expect to have? That would make it simple
enough, a person would
34 matches
Mail list logo
