xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

DonVla · 2010-10-29 14:53:22

Hello,

why was the xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) package split up in ~30 single packages?
IMO it's totally dumb. These are all sometimes useful tools. Now I have to install each one by hand.
They're not even in a group or similar. I think package splitting is now going way too far. It maybe useful for docs, etc, but now????

Vlad

Last edited by DonVla (2010-10-29 14:58:17)

ataraxia · 2010-10-29 15:11:35

They are split this way now because upstream started doing it that way, which made it painful for Jan to keep the single big packages up-to-date.

I do think a group would be a decent idea, though the current "transition packages" fill that role just fine.

DonVla · 2010-10-29 15:13:11

ataraxia wrote:

They are split this way now because upstream started doing it that way, which made it painful for Jan to keep the single big packages up-to-date.

Thanks, didn't know that.

I do think a group would be a decent idea, though the current "transition packages" fill that role just fine.

Which are the "transition packages"?
PS: Ok I see these are "xorg-apps" and "xorg-server-utils", but these just cover half of the former packages...
PPS: That's actually more annoying! I was about to install them all. Now I have to check which are not in the trans. packages....

Last edited by DonVla (2010-10-29 15:20:12)

dolby · 2010-10-29 16:04:28

Those applications have been split for years, ever since Xorg was forked from XFree86.
Its just Arch that had a joined package for them til late.
The Debian inspired naming is horrible btw.

edit: OK its not worst than KDE's split packages naming which was probably done that way cause pacman doesnt support groups in split packages and the each and every one had to use the module name (?), but still its absolutely uneeded.
The reasoning given which is to describe the package better (or something to that extend) can be said for any package.
For example why isnt rarian callled gnome-rarian like bdftopcf is called xorg-bdftopcf?
This is a rhetorical question, i know the answer is "cause Jan likes it that way"

Last edited by dolby (2010-10-29 16:26:21)

JGC · 2010-10-30 09:05:14

The transition packages don't cover the packages that are no longer in the upstream release set. Xedit for example has been removed from the release set ages ago.
I'll add the ones that are part of the official release set to the xorg group later. RIght now the transition packages do this for us. There's only one exception here: xorg-xinit. That package is no longer in the official release set but is needed on most systems still.

Names are prefixed with xorg- because of weird namings upstream. Names like "bitmaps", "rgb" and "bitmap" are far too generic.

Allan · 2010-10-30 09:25:21

dolby wrote:

which was probably done that way cause pacman doesnt support groups in split packages

Sure it does...

dolby · 2010-10-30 09:54:24

Allan wrote:

dolby wrote:
which was probably done that way cause pacman doesnt support groups in split packages
Sure it does...

Then why use meta packages instead of groups?
Do they offer *any* advantage?

edit: btw the part you quoted seems like a statement, but was actually a question, hence the (?) in the end that was left out of the quoting

Last edited by dolby (2010-10-30 09:56:42)

JGC · 2010-10-30 10:57:55

Yes, meta packages have one advantage over groups: you can replace packages with it. You can't force someone to install a group of packages to replace a single package. For upgrades, meta packages are superior to groups.

DonVla · 2010-10-30 13:39:17

 pacman -Qo xprop
/usr/bin/xprop is owned by xorg-utils 7.6-5

But there is also a xorg-xprop (https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageD … howfiles=1) package.

Last edited by DonVla (2010-10-30 13:42:44)

JGC · 2010-10-30 18:59:17

The transition is not done yet, some of these still need to be converted to meta packages.

DonVla · 2010-10-31 13:20:02

Ok, thanks Jan.

Leonid.I · 2010-10-31 16:26:42

JGC wrote:

Yes, meta packages have one advantage over groups: you can replace packages with it. You can't force someone to install a group of packages to replace a single package. For upgrades, meta packages are superior to groups.

I agree. But xorg-apps and xorg-server-utils should eventually be removed, right?

dolby · 2010-11-11 04:06:50

JGC wrote:

Yes, meta packages have one advantage over groups: you can replace packages with it. You can't force someone to install a group of packages to replace a single package. For upgrades, meta packages are superior to groups.

Aha! Thanks for replying Jan.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-10-29 14:53:22

xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#2 2010-10-29 15:11:35

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#3 2010-10-29 15:13:11

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#4 2010-10-29 16:04:28

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#5 2010-10-30 09:05:14

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#6 2010-10-30 09:25:21

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#7 2010-10-30 09:54:24

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#8 2010-10-30 10:57:55

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#9 2010-10-30 13:39:17

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#10 2010-10-30 18:59:17

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#11 2010-10-31 13:20:02

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#12 2010-10-31 16:26:42

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

#13 2010-11-11 04:06:50

Re: xorg-utils (or xorg-apps) split up

Board footer