On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:47:05AM -0500, Ryan Kavanagh wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:06:23PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > As I filed this just before Stretch's freeze, and you didn't act
> > immediately,
> > the freeze precluded us from killing old rxvt. It'd be nice if you could do
> > so for Buster.
>
> Thanks for reminding me of this. I have a backlog of changes to urxvt I want
> to
> upload in the next few days, so I'll make this change with those.
Awesome!
> > I think, though, that instead of migrating to rxvt-unicode-256color, it
> > might
> > be better to take over rxvt, make it the primary package, and make all other
> > variants be dummy transitionals for it.
>
> To confirm, you suggest making "rxvt" the primary binary package, and making
> the
> following dummy transitionals for it:
> * aterm
> * rxvt-unicode
> * rxvt-unicode-256color
>
> I also propose making rxvt-unicode-lite a transition package. I don't know
> that
> saving 200kb in an executable is worth the overhead given today's hardware:
> rak@zeta:/tmp$ for f in lite 256color; \
> do dpkg -c rxvt-unicode-${f}_9.22-1+b3_amd64.deb | grep 'bin/urxvt$'; done
> -rwxr-sr-x root/utmp 1136448 2017-07-22 02:35 ./usr/bin/urxvt
> -rwxr-sr-x root/utmp 1398784 2017-07-22 02:35 ./usr/bin/urxvt
Heh, now much point keeping it, indeed.
> I've never had to do a multi-package transition, but I assume I'll need to
> coordinate with debian-release following the same procedure as for library
> transitions?
The only interface goes through exec(), thus it's enough to provide symlinks
from the old executable names, no transition needed.
Meow!
--
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.
