On Di, 2010-06-29 at 00:04 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > Hello, > > 2010/6/28 Julien Cristau <[email protected]>: > > ever since etch or so, Xorg upgrades have been a bit of a pain as > > apt/aptitude decide to uninstall driver packages instead of upgrading > > them. > > ( If you want to be sure that aptitude is in the loop you want to write > to [email protected] too, but we are talking here based > on the great upgrade test from Petter Reinholdtsen "just" about the > current behavior of APT, doesn't we? ) > > > I haven't found the real cause for this problem, but for the time being > you can add to the xserver-xorg-video-all package the following line: > >>>>> > Breaks: xserver-xorg-video-cyrix, xserver-xorg-video-dummy, > xserver-xorg-video-glint, xserver-xorg-video-i810, > xserver-xorg-video-imstt, xserver-xorg-video-nsc, > xserver-xorg-video-radeonhd, xserver-xorg-video-tga, > xserver-xorg-video-v4l, xserver-xorg-video-vga, xserver-xorg-video-via > <<<<< > (a list of all packages xserver-xorg-video-all depended on in lenny but > no longer in squeeze). You might want to add versions to these breaks, > also a different package is maybe a better fit for this breaks line, > but at least in my test this caused the xorg upgrade problem to disappear. > > > > The current situation looks like this: > > > > Package: xserver-xorg > > Depends: xserver-xorg-core, xserver-xorg-video-all | > > xserver-xorg-video-${abi} > > > > Package: xserver-xorg-core > > Depends: xserver-xorg > > Conflicts: xserver-xorg-video-${oldabi} > > > > Package: xserver-xorg-video-foo > > Provides: xserver-xorg-video-${abi} > > Depends: xserver-xorg-core > > The conflicts is a breaks in current unstable, isn't it? > Packages like x11-common seems to have a lot of conflicts. > Are all of them - not only in this specific package - really needed or > would be Breaks enough? (see also the fresh policy version 3.9.0) > Also, xserver-xorg and xserver-xorg-core forming a dependency loop > in your snippet. > > > For squeeze I'm trying to get to something like this: > > > > Package: xserver-xorg > > Depends: xserver-xorg-core, xserver-xorg-video-all | xorg-driver-video > > > > Package: xserver-xorg-core > > Provides: xorg-video-abi-${abi} > > > > Package: xserver-xorg-video-foo > > Depends: xorg-video-abi-${abi} > > Provides: xorg-driver-video > > Looks much better on first glance. :) > But why the Depends on xserver-xorg-video-all ? > I assume that all packages xserver-xorg-video-all depends on will > provide xorg-driver-video so you depend on (A & B & …) | (A | B | …). > While apt currently chooses always the first option at first if it needs > to install something it is not guaranteed that it will do this forever or > that any other $packagemanager will always choose the A & B & … path
I guess we can guarantee that the primary choice will always be the first possible option in an OR-group unless one alternative is already satisfied. Of course, it might make sense to express the evalutation order of OR-groups more precisely in policy, probably as a "should". -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1277764845.19559.46.ca...@hp
