Re: [Gnewsense-dev] Re: No xv?

[Karl Goetz]

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:58:00 +0200
Yavor Doganov <address@hidden> wrote:

> Karl Goetz wrote:
> > > Should x11-common be fixed not to refer to xv?
> 
> > That means recompiling dozens (hundreds?) of packages for no gain
> > other then to remove 10 characters from a meta file.
> 
> Why do you think so?  I haven't investigated closely, but it seems to
> me that rebuilding x11-common with xv removed from its Conflicts: will
> be the immediate cure.  There should be no other packages involved.

Sorry - I had mentally moved to the general case.

> On a more general note, I find that many (free) packages in Debian
> cater for non-free conflicts, mostly to assist in error-free
> transitions stable->newstable.  For example, the `xv' issue is a
> remnant from the X11 transition that took place during the Etch->Lenny
> cycle (AFAIR, at aleast).

> I don't think it's the job of an entirely free distro to ensure
> flawless upgrade process for those users who have nonfree packages
> installed, so I personally do not see any reason to resist these kind
> of changes (i.e. dropping useless Conflicts: package relationships).

In the case of a conflicts it seems a pointless delta to carry. In a
Depend or recommend (or suggest), I entirely agree.
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature