Re: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
[Followups set.] On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:00:03PM -0500, Craig P. Steffen wrote: I am prospective DD; as one of my opening packages, I intend to adopt the sound file editor xwave. One of the bugs against it, 170005, says that depending on the virtual package libxaw-dev is wrong. However, reading the debian policy manual sections 3.6 and 7.4, it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The real packages libxaw6-dev and libxaw7-dev exist, and are listed as Providing libxaw-dev. The only other thing that the policy manuals suggest is that virtual packages be mentioned in the virtual-packages-name-list.txt. So I propose that libxaw-dev be added to that list. I disagree; instead, I'm going to kill off libxaw-dev. My decision to use the libxaw-dev virtual package in the first place appears to date back to the time when we had multiple implementations of the Athena library (NeXTaw, Xaw95, and Xaw3D). The -dev packages for these implementations could not coexist with each other, nor with libXaw6's -dev package, because all of them tried to provide /usr/X11R6/lib/libXaw.so for compile-time linking. This is no longer a problem. NeXTaw and Xaw95 have been withdrawn from the distribution, and Xaw3D now uses the shared object name libXaw3d. The only two packages that will collide with each other now are libxaw6-dev and libxaw7-dev, both of which are under my control. A virtual package is not needed to coordinate between two packages I maintain. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- G. Branden Robinson| I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux | complicated way only to be able to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | have that comment in there. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#211622: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:16:18 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: [Followups set.] On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:00:03PM -0500, Craig P. Steffen wrote: I am prospective DD; as one of my opening packages, I intend to adopt the sound file editor xwave. One of the bugs against it, 170005, says that depending on the virtual package libxaw-dev is wrong. However, reading the debian policy manual sections 3.6 and 7.4, it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The real packages libxaw6-dev and libxaw7-dev exist, and are listed as Providing libxaw-dev. The only other thing that the policy manuals suggest is that virtual packages be mentioned in the virtual-packages-name-list.txt. So I propose that libxaw-dev be added to that list. I disagree; instead, I'm going to kill off libxaw-dev. My decision to use the libxaw-dev virtual package in the first place appears to date back to the time when we had multiple implementations of the Athena library (NeXTaw, Xaw95, and Xaw3D). The -dev packages for these implementations could not coexist with each other, nor with libXaw6's -dev package, because all of them tried to provide /usr/X11R6/lib/libXaw.so for compile-time linking. This is no longer a problem. NeXTaw and Xaw95 have been withdrawn from the distribution, and Xaw3D now uses the shared object name libXaw3d. The only two packages that will collide with each other now are libxaw6-dev and libxaw7-dev, both of which are under my control. A virtual package is not needed to coordinate between two packages I maintain. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This renders the request moot, since it is being withdrawn from the only packages still providing it. manoj -- The Great Movie Posters: An AVALANCHE of KILLER WORMS! Squirm (1976) Most Movies Live Less Than Two Hours. This Is One of Everlasting Torment! The New House on the Left (1977) WE ARE GOING TO EAT YOU! Zombie (1980) It's not human and it's got an axe. The Prey (1981) Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Bug#211622: marked as done (propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev)
Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:08:59 -0500
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 19 Sep 2003 02:13:09 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 18 21:13:00 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from 12-221-76-166.client.insightbb.com (gallifrey) [12.221.76.166]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A0AlW-00067a-00; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:12:58 -0500
Received: from gallifrey
([127.0.0.1] helo=there ident=craig)
by gallifrey with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1A0AkY-0006iX-00; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:11:58 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
From: Craig P. Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:11:19 -0500
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.7 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE,PGP_SIGNATURE
autolearn=ham version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_16
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_16
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: wishlist
I am prospective DD; as one of my opening packages, I intend to adopt the
sound file editor xwave. One of the bugs against it, 170005, says that
depending on the virtual package libxaw-dev is wrong.
However, reading the debian policy manual sections 3.6 and 7.4, it seems to
me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The real packages libxaw6-dev
and libxaw7-dev exist, and are listed as Providing libxaw-dev. The only
other thing that the policy manuals suggest is that virtual packages be
mentioned in the virtual-packages-name-list.txt.
So I propose that libxaw-dev be added to that list.
Craig Steffen
- --
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/amXY63RQ21/5HgURAvlJAKCC/qqU+HjRYRl2W6gqeT1j88o2oACfYI51
ASrdGBv8Al6APZpA2HNi1eU=
=F1JS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
---
Received: (at 211622-done) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Sep 2003 21:16:31 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 21 16:16:26 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.green-gryphon.com)
[12.107.230.171]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A1BZ8-00072d-00; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:16:24 -0500
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-1) with ESMTP id
h8LL90CH005659;
Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:09:00 -0500
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-1) id
h8LL90rW005654;
Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:09:00 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.green-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.1 (via feedmail 8 I)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: propose new v
Subject: Re: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzbi0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:08:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson's
message of Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:16:18 -0500)
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.2 required=4.0
tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_20
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53
Bug#211622: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:11:19PM -0500, Craig P. Steffen wrote: I am prospective DD; as one of my opening packages, I intend to adopt the sound file editor xwave. One of the bugs against it, 170005, says that depending on the virtual package libxaw-dev is wrong. However, reading the debian policy manual sections 3.6 and 7.4, it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The real packages libxaw6-dev and libxaw7-dev exist, and are listed as Providing libxaw-dev. The only other thing that the policy manuals suggest is that virtual packages be mentioned in the virtual-packages-name-list.txt. The problem is that you must not Depend on a virtual package unless you provide a real package as an alternative before the real one. Depends; libxaw7-dev | libxaw-dev is OK. See policy 7.4 The rationale were given by Matthias (Letting apt-get perform without human intervention like on autobuilders). That libxaw-dev is not official is irrelevant to #170005. This is a generally agreed upon practice for a library to provide the virtual package libxxx-dev. Such virtual packages don't need to be make official. See Junichi library packaging guide. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here.
Re: Bug#211622: propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
Hi, Craig P. Steffen wrote:
However, reading the debian policy manual sections 3.6 and 7.4, it seems to
me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The real packages libxaw6-dev
and libxaw7-dev exist, and are listed as Providing libxaw-dev.
The problem is that there's no way for the autobuilder to know which
package they should use for building your program. So it either chooses
one randomly, or dies with an error.
Even if I convince it to choose the more current libxaw7-dev, that's not
enough. What if I find a bug and decide to rebuild the package locally? If
I happen to have libxaw6-dev already installed, the build will proceed
happily, but yield a wholly different package, probably with different
bugs. :-/
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
When a person stands on his dignity, it's probably because he has very
insecure footing.
