On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 09:52:52PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 02:09:57PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 11:33:08AM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 03:05:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > The current xserver-xorg package no longer Provides: the virtual > > > > 'xserver' > > > > package, which all xserver packages have done since time immemorial (or > > > > at > > > > least since sarge). As there is no mention of this in the xserver-xorg > > > > changelog, I imagine this was removed in error. > > > > > I removed it. > > > > Are you going to deign to tell me why? > > If you are relying on a working X environment, you just need to depend > on the set of X libraries you use. If you're relying on a specific > server, you need to launch that server. > > No server that I know of will reliably start and work when invoked > without any DDX-specific parameters. Not Xorg, not Xgl, not any of the > KDrive-class servers. > > Okay, Xephyr and Xnest will, but they are not what you want when you > depend on the 'xserver' package. > > Same reason I made xresprobe invoke /usr/bin/Xorg directly, instead of > calling through the /etc/X11/X symlink and just hoping that it worked. > > Although, upon writing this mail, I'd imagine that ?dm Depends: > xserver-xorg | xserver, is an entirely valid use case, as they require > an X server to be startable, use no DDX-specific parameters, and do not > take responsibility for X server configuration. If that's what you had > in mind, then yeah, I'm wrong. > > Either way, adding it back won't draw any complaints from me. Merely > noting that it was removed deliberately, not accidentally.
Cool, thanks for the explanation. I didn't quite understand why it would be removed either when Steve found it. Since the *dm use case is a valid one, I'll re-add it. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
