Comment 6 for bug 308387

discussion on IRC coalesced around changing libdrm-dev as the short-term solution:

08:17 < cjwatson> so the short-term answer is to use the files in libdrm-dev instead, then?
08:17 < apw> i think that is the low risk strategy for the -alpha2 milestone
08:18 < cjwatson> I agree; in that case, remove the files from linux-libc-dev and upload libdrm-dev with Replaces: linux-libc-dev (<< first-version-without-those-files)
08:18 < apw> it sounded like there is a push with the consumers of these headers to fix the headers in the kernel or the consumer packages to cope, but i don't think its going to be instant
08:18 < apw> the bug is also occuring in debian upstream too
08:18 < pitti> cjwatson: why a libdrm-upload in this case?
08:20 < cjwatson> because it's the right thing to do - otherwise people with the old linux-libc-dev installed might get errors on upgrade

After alpha-2, we can revisit trying to get working headers into l-l-d and dropping them from libdrm-dev.

Note that libdrm-dev's Replaces: needs to be versioned, otherwise there's the possibility that dpkg will silently omit the l-l-d copies of the headers on upgrade. So in this case, we probably want Replaces: linux-libc-dev (<= 2.6.28-3.4), making a good-faith assumption that this will be "resolved" in some sense for the next linux upload.