01-08-2009, 04:12 AM
I am not sure what your criticism or previous ramble is about, since the x11proto-input-dev package does not contain XInput.h. What conflict are you talking about?
Originally Posted by gordboy
About moving files between packages, this was done by our beloved upstream. We try to track upstream closely, that's the whole point of the xorg-edgers project. For fool-proof packages, please stay with official distribution packages.
If upgrading development headers "breaks your entire system", you must have gotten out of sync. Just uninstall them all, they are not needed for normal usage. You can then reinstall them from the archive if you need to compile something.
01-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Tormod, I hate to break it to you, but you are completely WRONG.
XInput.h is in the "x11proto-input-dev" package in stock Hardy. So to have it mysteriously appear in another package, "libxi-dev" is strange, to say the least. And that is where the conflict arises. A file that exists in two packages at once.
The fact that you are blissfully unaware of this is STAGGERING. And the fact that you chose to adopt a condescending tone with me speaks volumes.
01-08-2009, 02:53 PM
Where do I even begin ?
I have been a programmer for over 30 years, and I will decide which packages I do and don't need. You may be a big fish in your own little pond, but you don't cut any ice with me.
In the interests of not disrupting this forum, I won't say any more about this, except to ask NICELY if you could possibly see your way to fixing your own mess, and to publicly apologize here on this forum.
An old article I wrote in Linux Journal some years ago -
A talk I gave at Edinburgh University (accept security certificate to view page, and scroll down) -
My (rejuvenated) sourceforge project -
Admittedly, not everyone is interested in serious development work here, and would not perhaps be expected to know that dependencies do indeed pull in a whole slew of dev packages. Including, needless to say "x11proto-input-dev".
By the same token, some people might be unaware that having a system with a broken X, where you cannot proceed until it is fixed, nor go back - because of the inconsistent state of the dpkg databases - really is not good enough. I have enough to do without tidying up after slovenly, unruly children.
01-08-2009, 06:57 PM
Dude, I was of course talking about the x11proto-input-dev in the xorg-edgers repo. If you install libxi-dev from the repo, you must install x11proto-input-dev from the repo also. A normal update from the repo will take care of that. The whole stack should be in sync, you are not supposed to just install a random selection of packages. You are of course free to do what you want, but please spare us and yourself from disturbed fuzz.
01-09-2009, 02:00 AM
So It's My Fault Now ?
You are in error. I did not "ramdomly" do anything. I updated ALL the packages, and it broke one of my systems, exactly as I described. And while we are on the subject of packages and repos, can I ask where your signing key is ?
A file cannot exist in 2 packages at once. And so in this case, if you already have one of the offending packages installed, then the update is bound to fail, short of forcing options. A standard way around this is to use what are known as diversions. I would recommend any decent tutorial on debian package management.
The fact of the matter is that you have failed, both in providing sane packages, and in admitting your error. Instead of trying to correct your mistakes, you have tried to blame others. And it follows that you are an obnoxious, talentless repackager of other peoples' work.
A FUCKING DOLT.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
01-09-2009, 04:50 AM
Cut the trial style claim, it's really annoying. "Please provide apologizes", "I say you're a moron and what you do sucks, but nevertheless, where is the signing key?" --- seriously LOL
Originally Posted by gordboy
As people usually say, if you're not happy with what is provided, compile it by yourself! I don't know who's right or wrong but your unfriendly and over-serious bitching is ridiculous. Now you're even being insulting. I'm pretty sure you still have some kind of kindness hidden somewhere!
How about a simple and pragmatical copy&past of the actual problem? I bet it'll probably help making your point... much more than your lame bitching.
01-09-2009, 08:37 AM
I think it makes a sense now to update the very first post.
Since Intrepid has xf86-video-ati of v6.9.x, and there is already v6.10.0 ready ;-)
01-09-2009, 09:45 AM
Well, if you are interested you can find them in my PPA.:
Originally Posted by mityukov
This is mainly for personal use (well to be honest I also wrote the first post of this thread for my use, and then published it here later if someone was interested).
Note that all packages from here comes from tormodvolden and xorg-edgers PPAs. I copied them in a separate PPA, so that:
- I don't need to install other packages in the original PPA, but only radeon related packages
- I have not copied the updated libdrm which introduces new binary packages (which may break upgrades)
- all the packages are in one PPA - simpler to use
- I can leave this PPA always enabled
Last edited by oibaf; 01-09-2009 at 09:47 AM.
01-09-2009, 10:47 AM
Nice! Just want to point out that all the Xorg driver packages in my own PPA (tormodvolden) have no dependencies. Each of them can be installed in a standard install like "drop-in replacements".
If I had dropped a new xserver in there, any new driver would be built against this xserver and would in principle depend on this xserver to be installed as well. In practice it will depend on how many changes are introduced in the new xserver. For example, the updated intrepid xserver in xorg-edgers only has a few changes (no ABI changes AFAIK) so the drivers in tormodvolden (built against the standard xserver) should work well with it.
The same relation applies between mesa and the xserver: An xserver built against a new mesa would depend on this mesa, if the changes are important enough.
01-09-2009, 01:18 PM
Stay out of what doesn't concern you. People are perfectly entitled to DEMAND explanations for the crass idiocy that characterizes Tormod's amateur hour attempts at packaging. I have explained exactly what the problem is.
On the subject of kindness - exactly how kind would it be to let a catastrophic, howling foul-up bring the whole development process and Linux itself into disrepute by breaking peoples' systems ? When systems are broken by stupidity verging on the reckless, then it is incumbent on grown-up sensible people to point that out.
I feel very strongly about this, and Tormod's unwillingness to address the issues raised, and indeed suggest that there is no problem other than other peoples' inadequacies, is exasperating.
Yes - I've used immoderate language. No - I don't regret it for a second.