xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

Salkay · 2017-05-07 01:33:45

I just noticed that xorg-server-utils was removed from the official repositories. This was a meta package that did nothing more than depend on

xorg-iceauth xorg-sessreg xorg-xcmsdb xorg-xbacklight xorg-xgamma xorg-xhost xorg-xinput xorg-xmodmap xorg-xrandr xorg-xrdb xorg-xrefresh xorg-xset xorg-xsetroot

However, a previous version of the Arch wiki's installation guide (or beginner's guide?) a few years ago recommended installing xorg-server-utils.

What was the rationale for removing this package from the repositories? Should we just manually mark the dependencies `--asexplicit`?

Also, the Xorg page in the wiki still says

some packages from the xorg-server-utils meta-package are necessary for certain configuration tasks, they are pointed out in the relevant sections

(although there is no further mention of this package in the article).

Trilby · 2017-05-07 02:31:18

Salkay wrote:

Should we just manually mark the dependencies `--asexplicit`?

Only if you (explicitly) use them.

Salkay wrote:

(although there is no further mention of this package in the article).

Which package? Some of the packages you listed *are* mentioned in other sections of that page. If you want the features provided by those packages, keep them. Otherwise they are not necessary.

chipmunkboogie · 2017-05-07 02:33:35

There is a development version in the repos.

https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extr … ver-devel/

Last edited by chipmunkboogie (2017-05-07 02:38:00)

Salkay · 2017-05-07 02:41:02

Trilby wrote:

Only if you (explicitly) use them.

I was just avoiding having to spend time going through them, and working out precisely what each one did!

Trilby wrote:

Which package? Some of the packages you listed *are* mentioned in other sections of that page. If you want the features provided by those packages, keep them. Otherwise they are not necessary.

I meant xorg-server-utils itself. But I re-read the wiki and I misunderstood that the meta package would we mentioned again, not the dependencies. However, it seems that only xorg-xinput is mentioned later, and the other 12 packages are not.

chipmunkboogie wrote:

There is a development version in the repos.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extr … ver-devel/

I don't think it's the same? That has different dependencies, and is an actual package, providing installable files.

Trilby · 2017-05-07 02:47:56

xmodmap and xrandr are mentioned on that same page. Some of the others may be mentioned on linked pages. But my first point is the main point: these are not required for anything, so if you don't use them, you can remove them. I only have 4 of those packages installed - and I know exactly why I have them installed because I use them directly.

If you use any of these "indirectly", e.g., through some other front end tool that depends on them, these packages will be dependencies of that front end tool. So any of these that are orphans (nothing depends on them) can be removed if you don't recognize what they are for.

Salkay · 2017-05-07 03:23:38

Trilby wrote:

xmodmap and xrandr are mentioned on that same page.

Ah yes. I was searching for the actual package names, which weren't mentioned.

Trilby wrote:

But my first point is the main point: these are not required for anything, so if you don't use them, you can remove them. I only have 4 of those packages installed - and I know exactly why I have them installed because I use them directly.
If you use any of these "indirectly", e.g., through some other front end tool that depends on them, these packages will be dependencies of that front end tool. So any of these that are orphans (nothing depends on them) can be removed if you don't recognize what they are for.

Yeah okay, fair point. TBH I have some things in old scripts that I only have a vague recollection of (e.g. xhost). But yes, thank you for the advice. That sounds all very logical. Cheers.

zebulon · 2017-05-07 19:40:22

It looks like these packages are now in the xorg-apps group. I will update the Xorg wiki page accordingly.

Salkay · 2017-05-07 22:51:29

Thanks @zebulon.

olegabrielz · 2017-05-08 12:11:24

@Salkay: If you consider your initial question to have been answered please edit your first post and prepend [SOLVED] to the title.

Salkay · 2017-05-08 12:31:29

olegabrielz wrote:

@Salkay: If you consider your initial question to have been answered please edit your first post and prepend [SOLVED] to the title.

I will do. I normally do, as per the following 29 threads that I've started and marked [SOLVED]. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.

However, in this case, I suspect that one of my questions might be unanswerable.

What was the rationale for removing this package from the repositories?

olegabrielz · 2017-05-08 13:57:30

@Salkay: Just thought you might have forgotten it. But as you say: It may be unanswerable

LaurentvdB · 2017-05-09 13:43:39

Salkay wrote:

[...]
However, in this case, I suspect that one of my questions might be unanswerable.
What was the rationale for removing this package from the repositories?

I am quite new to Arch, so I am not sure about the following explanation. But for me this choice seems rather logical. Each package in Arch contains an application or library and instead of using transitional packages that are common in other distributions (e.g. Debian and friends), groups are being used (e.g. gnome, xorg, many more etc.). So the rationale would be removing transitional packages and replacing them for groups for sake of consistency.

Salkay · 2017-05-10 02:35:56

LaurentvdB wrote:

I am quite new to Arch, so I am not sure about the following explanation. But for me this choice seems rather logical. Each package in Arch contains an application or library and instead of using transitional packages that are common in other distributions (e.g. Debian and friends), groups are being used (e.g. gnome, xorg, many more etc.). So the rationale would be removing transitional packages and replacing them for groups for sake of consistency.

I'm not sure about the rationale of changing things merely for consistency. However, the advantage of meta-packages compared to groups is that they can be modified to add/remove dependencies at later dates. And from a user perspective, it's easier to remove all related packages rather than having to remember/specify individual packages, especially if the group has changed at a later date.

Arch Linux

#1 2017-05-07 01:33:45

xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#2 2017-05-07 02:31:18

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#3 2017-05-07 02:33:35

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#4 2017-05-07 02:41:02

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#5 2017-05-07 02:47:56

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#6 2017-05-07 03:23:38

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#7 2017-05-07 19:40:22

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#8 2017-05-07 22:51:29

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#9 2017-05-08 12:11:24

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#10 2017-05-08 12:31:29

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#11 2017-05-08 13:57:30

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#12 2017-05-09 13:43:39

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

#13 2017-05-10 02:35:56

Re: xorg-server-utils removed from official repositories

Board footer