Re: [arch-dev-public] Automating package conflict resolution whenever possible (xorgproto/libxfont dependency conflict)

[Allan McRae via arch-dev-public]

On 14/02/18 22:28, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> How about having this feature in pacman, maybe with an indicator if the
> package is still in a repository?

pacman -Qtd

Re: [arch-dev-public] Automating package conflict resolution whenever possible (xorgproto/libxfont dependency conflict)

[Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public]

On 14.02.2018 12:55, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Funny thing...  people using yaourt probably removed this package as I
> believe it highlights dependencies that are no longer needed after an
> upgrade!

How about having this feature in pacman, maybe with an indicator if the
package is still in a repository?

Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Automating package conflict resolution whenever possible (xorgproto/libxfont dependency conflict)

[Allan McRae via arch-dev-public]

Just because I had to look up the details of this


- xorgproto replaces a lot of packages, including fontsproto:
 :: Replace fontsproto with extra/xorgproto? [Y/n]

- libxfont requires fontsproto, so this causes the following:
 :: libxfont: removing fontsproto breaks dependency 'fontsproto>=2.1.3'


- people with systems older than 2016-11-16, may have libxfont as
xorg-server depended on it until that time.  Now xorg-server depends on
libxfont2.

- libxfont2 does not replace libxfont, as it is a completely different API.

- libxfont was removed from the Arch repos somewhere in April or May
2017.  So nothing official depends on libxfont.


I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people to run "pacman -Qi
libxfont", see it was installed as a dependency and no package depends
on it and remove it.  There also does not seem to be a correct way of us
to handle this - joys of rolling release!


Funny thing...  people using yaourt probably removed this package as I
believe it highlights dependencies that are no longer needed after an
upgrade!

A

Re: [arch-dev-public] Automating package conflict resolution whenever possible (xorgproto/libxfont dependency conflict)

[Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public]

> Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public  hat am 14. 
> Februar 2018 um 12:26 geschrieben:
> 
> 
> > Baptiste Jonglez  hat am 14. Februar 2018 um 
> > 10:19 geschrieben:
> >
> > Quite frankly, the packaging issue itself is minor, I was just surprised
> > of the way it was handled: spending time to close several bug reports
> > about the issue and telling people that they are stupid [2], instead of just
> > fixing the issue in the first place.  It goes against (my idea of) common
> > sense.
> > 
> I was initially surprised by the force of the reaction you linked, but then 
> saw this was a response to the *eleventh* request. That makes it a natural 
> response to people being relentlessly obnoxious.
> 
> About the package itself, I agree that if libxfont2 were an *actual* 
> replacement of libxfont, then the corresponding field should be filled in. 
> According to upstream [3], the API/ABI is however entirely different, with 
> according .so names. As such, you'd make use of packages the rely on the old 
> API impossible solely for a short-term convenience.
> 
And I forgot the link again:

[3] https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-announce/2015-December/002661.html
> Alad

Re: [arch-dev-public] Automating package conflict resolution whenever possible (xorgproto/libxfont dependency conflict)

[Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public]

> Baptiste Jonglez  hat am 14. Februar 2018 um 
> 10:19 geschrieben:
>
> Quite frankly, the packaging issue itself is minor, I was just surprised
> of the way it was handled: spending time to close several bug reports
> about the issue and telling people that they are stupid [2], instead of just
> fixing the issue in the first place.  It goes against (my idea of) common
> sense.
> 
I was initially surprised by the force of the reaction you linked, but then saw 
this was a response to the *eleventh* request. That makes it a natural response 
to people being relentlessly obnoxious.

About the package itself, I agree that if libxfont2 were an *actual* 
replacement of libxfont, then the corresponding field should be filled in. 
According to upstream [3], the API/ABI is however entirely different, with 
according .so names. As such, you'd make use of packages the rely on the old 
API impossible solely for a short-term convenience.

Alad

Re: [arch-dev-public] Automating package conflict resolution whenever possible (xorgproto/libxfont dependency conflict)

[Baptiste Jonglez]

On 13-02-18, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 02/13/2018 06:56 PM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Eli and I disagree about how dependency conflicts should be handled when
> > packaging.  This was prompted by the libxfont dependency conflict arising
> > from recent xorgproto changes [1].
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57495
> 
> Is there a reason you took a private disagreement to the public mailing
> lists:
> 
> - regarding which you have confused me for the primary person
>   disagreeing with you
> - when in fact there are three people who directly disagree with you on
>   that very issue, as I told you in that private discussion
> - regarding which this public post seems to essentially exist in order
>   to, I dunno, shame me into responding in view of the world at large,
>   again despite my not being the only or indeed the primary person who
>   you are actually disagreeing with?

I'm sorry if you feel offended, but I'm not sure what I am shaming you
into exactly.

- I initially thought I had a disagreement with you, because you were the
  one I saw closing bug reports about the issue.  This is why I emailed
  you directly.

- your answer made it clear that we *do* disagree, but you also said that
  your position is shared with other members of the community: what you
  called "a longstanding tradition of not considering these type of issues
  to be valid bugs", and the fact that Doug and arojas also closed bug
  reports about the issue.

- so, I decided to start a public discussion about the issue, with the
  starting point that we *do* indeed disagree about it.

Quite frankly, the packaging issue itself is minor, I was just surprised
of the way it was handled: spending time to close several bug reports
about the issue and telling people that they are stupid [2], instead of just
fixing the issue in the first place.  It goes against (my idea of) common
sense.

Now, the point of this email on arch-dev-public was to discuss the
packaging issue and whether it is a policy *not* to fix these kind of
issues.  I'm fine either way, I'll know for next time.

Baptiste

[2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57393#comment166572

> I would like to register my formal objection to your treating this as a
> personal disagreement between the two of us. I explained why this was
> not an "Eli Schwartz thinks so" thing in that private email -- you
> disliked my explanation and asked for more proof, while *simultanously*
> CC'ing arch-dev-public with claims about how I "and possibly others"
> disagree with you.
> 
> You did not give me a chance to respond to your new question before
> CC'ing arch-dev-public.





signature.asc
Description: PGP signature