Re: the Great X Reorganization, package splits, and renaming

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:

> Just thought I would bring this up one more time and run it by everyone.
> This can be considered a draft of what I'd like to put in the release
> notes.

[...]

> Furthermore, the X font and static library packages have been renamed.  The
> following list summarizes these changes:
> 
>     xfntbase    ->    xfonts-base
>     xfnt75      ->    xfonts-75dpi
>     xfnt100     ->    xfonts-100dpi
>     xfntscl     ->    xfonts-scalable
>     xfntbig     ->    xfonts-cjk
>     xfntcyr     ->    xfonts-cyrillic
>     xfntpex     ->    xfonts-pex
>     xslib       ->    xlib6-static
>     xslibg      ->    xlib6g-static
> 
> I believe the new names are less cryptic.  Note, however, that the old
> packages may not necessarily be automatically upgraded to the new versions.
> This is because their names have changed, and as yet there is no easy way
> to tell the packaging system that a package has changed its name.

I agree that we don't have an *elegant* way of telling the package system
that a package has changed its name.

But we have a very simple way, without adding new features to the
packaging system, to avoid the problem that X packages are not upgraded
automatically, namely, just make xfntbase an empty package which depends
on xfonts-base (and so on for the other packages).

I can't believe that this is not easy to do. It would be just a matter of
making some empty packages, they could be generated from the same source
package, and of course the source package would not have to be the same
source package which is used for all the other X real packages (I'm sure
the X source package is already quite complex).

If the problem is that you don't have enough time for both the X packages
and the dummy ones required for smoothly upgrading the font packages, no
problem. We are more than 300 developers and I'm sure that there will be
someone who would help you in this if you need help.

[ If nobody is interested in this, I would volunteer ].

> However, there are no serious consequences of leaving the old X fonts
> and static libraries around.

Debian would be failing to the (documented everywhere) promise of smooth
upgrades if we decide not to make the X upgrade smooth, being it such a
popular set of packages. I think failing to this fundamental promise
would be indeed a serious consequence.

>  The contents of these packages have not changed.  The X
> font server, for instance, formerly in xbase but now in its own package,
> works just as well with xfntbase as with xfonts-base.
> 
> Still, it is advisable to install the renamed versions of these packages as
> soon as is convenient, in the event that their contents do change in the
> future.

This would just postpone the problem until there is a real difference
between the old packages and the new ones, but would not make the
problem to disappear. It would be just a clock bomb. Imagine the following
scenario:

--Oh, I upgraded from Debian 2.1 to Debian 2.2 and now my font packages
do not work.

--Did you read the release notes for the X packages in Debian 2.1.

--What for? Debian claims to have smooth upgrades. Why it should be so
important to read the release notes?



I have proposed a very simple solution, which, in addition to the
empty xbase (I applaud that you accepted this idea), would make the X
upgrades *completely* smooth.

I think this solution would be very easy to implement, it will avoid
problems in the future, and I have not heard yet a good reason *not* to
implement it.

I really hope you reconsider about these few extra dummy packages.

Thanks.

-- 
 "7149ffdc7f830ccf71b4766c69ac4bf4" (a truly random sig)