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

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:18:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > 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've tried to say this more delicately.  Obviously that's been the wrong
> approach.

You will notice I'm trying to be delicate as well :-)
 
> Your solution is uglier than hell.

Ugly or not, at least it would *work*.
What you are proposing is *not* to solve the problem at all.
I don't think this is acceptable.

I have nothing to object to "I believe the new names are less cryptic.",
but if the renaming creates a problem (and certainly it will), I think you
should allow this problem to be fixed in *some* way.

Otherwise it will be clear that the package renaming creates more problems
that it solves and it would be wiser to go back to the old names right
now, before we release slink.

> I will implement it only at gunpoint.  There has got to be a better way.

Well, I do not require *you* to implement it. I just say that something
like this, or better[*], should be implemented. I can create the packages
for you, if you like, or even I could maintain them for slink, if it's that
what you need.

[*] The best thing would be to add a new dpkg field, of course,
but then dpkg would have to be the first package to be upgraded.
I hope we will agree that we can discard this method.

> One junk package I can live with due to the complexity of the issue.
> 
> Ten is intolerable.

I would call intolerable to create a problem and then not allowing it
to be fixed.

> Please followup to the list, or do not reply at all if you don't have any
> alternative ideas.

Well, I'm sorry to reply, then, but I really *really* think that this must
be fixed before slink relase.

I have only a "better" proposal, which is to get back to the old names. 

But if you rename the packages, then we will have to accept the
consecuencies: we will *need* compatibility packages or else the upragde
will *not* be smooth.

Thanks.

-- 
 "7211f09c6366bda0c5061950ef363d67" (a truly random sig)