[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1003130: x11-utils copy of luit was superseded by luit 2.0 in 2013.



Package: x11-utils
Version: 7.7+5
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

   * x11-utils copy of luit was superseded by luit 2.0 in 2013.
   * mentioned this several times to developers in X Strike Force
   * developers did not reply to those comments
   * developers could have suggested a way to address the issue

As a solution to that, I propose to create a new package "luit2",
and modify x11-utils to install its luit as "luit1", allowing the
alternatives feature to let users select an up-to-date luit.

The change to x11-utils is in bug #1003021.
This bug covers the new packaging for luit.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.15.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU threads)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US.UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages x11-utils depends on:
ii  libc6           2.33-1
ii  libfontconfig1  2.13.1-4.2
ii  libfontenc1     1:1.1.4-1
ii  libgl1          1.3.4-2+b1
ii  libx11-6        2:1.7.2-2+b1
ii  libx11-xcb1     2:1.7.2-2+b1
ii  libxaw7         2:1.0.13.1-20191125
ii  libxcb-shape0   1.14-3
ii  libxcb1         1.14-3
ii  libxcomposite1  1:0.4.5-1
ii  libxext6        2:1.3.4-1
ii  libxft2         2.3.2-2
ii  libxi6          2:1.8-1
ii  libxinerama1    2:1.1.4-2
ii  libxkbfile1     1:1.1.0-1
ii  libxmu6         2:1.1.2-2+b3
ii  libxmuu1        2:1.1.2-2+b3
ii  libxrandr2      2:1.5.2-1
ii  libxrender1     1:0.9.10-1
hi  libxt6          1:1.2.0-20190617
ii  libxtst6        2:1.2.3-1
ii  libxv1          2:1.0.11-1
ii  libxxf86dga1    2:1.1.4-1+b3
ii  libxxf86vm1     1:1.1.4-1+b2

x11-utils recommends no packages.

Versions of packages x11-utils suggests:
ii  mesa-utils  8.4.0-1+b2

-- no debconf information


Reply to: