Proposal mass bug filling on packages depending on xlibs(?)

[Ondrej Sury]

On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 05:22 +0200, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> Good Morning,
> 
> On Sunday 31 July 2005 23:51, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 15:55 -0500, Ming Hua wrote:
> > > So would you please elaborate what you mean by "but it seems that
> > > depending on '| xlibs (>> 4.1.0)' will be wrong for Breezy anyway"?
> >
> > Well, it seems useless to depend on transitional package, isn't it?
> > My opinion is that Daniel should change shlibs to not include xlibs, so
> > newly compiled package won't depend on xlibs (transitional package).
> > I think that there is still plenty of time for Breezy, but dropping
> > xlibs can be done for Breezy+1 as well.  (That's not up to me to
> > decide :-).
> 
> Another transition on the list of TODOs for MOTU.
> You are free to join the MOTU Team...to change all deps from xlibs to libx* we 
> need any helping hand we can get.

Well, I just started Czech Ubuntu (www.ubuntu.cz) pages, and I will be
joining and coordinating czech l10n team, so unfortunately I would have
to split myself into two to help with Universe.

> I think, after Daniel is finished with Xorg, it should be easier to leave this 
> for breezy+1. I hope Debian is going also the Xorg way and is using Daniels 
> Xorg packages.
> So, after breezy release, we can easily sync it from Debian.
> 
> But right now, 2005-08-11 is standing in front of our door...and we should 
> take this time until release, to polish most of the apps to run properly, to 
> have proper .desktop files etc. pp. instead of punishing the buildds with 
> recompilation of all packages with xlibs deps.

I thought so :-).

> And Daniels attempt to reintroduce those backward compatiblity is a better 
> approach then recompiling anyways.

IMHO reintroduce dependencies in xlibs + change shlibs (so new packages
don't add xlibs) is best we can do for the moment, isn't it?

O.
-- 
Ondrej Sury <ondrej at sury.org>