Bug#225004: tetex-extra: Type1 fonts should be in a separate package
On 11.02.04 Frank Küster (frank@kuesterei.ch) wrote:
> Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
Hi,
> > Latest version attached.
>
> --- debian.orig/control Wed Feb 11 10:22:38 2004
> +++ debian/control Wed Feb 11 11:31:52 2004
> @@ -9,9 +9,9 @@
> Package: tetex-base
> Architecture: all
> Depends: texinfo (>= 4.0b-1), debconf
> -Replaces: texidoc, bibtex, texpsfnt, mfbasfnt, xdvik, dvipsk, mfnfss,[...]
> +Replaces: texidoc, bibtex, texpsfnt, mfbasfnt, mfnfss, [...]
> Pre-Depends: dpkg (>=1.6.8)
> -Conflicts: texidoc, bibtex, texpsfnt, mfbasfnt, xdvik, mfnfss, [...]
> +Conflicts: texidoc, bibtex, texpsfnt, mfbasfnt, mfnfss, [...]
>
> Why did you change Conflicts and Replaces of tetex-base and -extra?
>
Well, I just thought...that Conflicts of tetex-base with xdvi, dvips
etc. is nonsense. I'll turn it back.
> +Package: tetex-extra-fonts
> +Architecture: all
>
> +Conflicts: textfm, texpsfnt, mfbasfnt, mfnfss, amsfonts, amstex,
> +amslatex, ltxmisc, ltxtool, psnfss, mfdcfnt, mflib, pandora, hyperref,
> +tetex-french, cspsfonts, tetex-nonfree, pb-diagram, revtex4 (<= 4.0-2),
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +tetex-eurosym, texdoctk, tetex-extra (<= 2.0.2-x.x)
>
> This makes it conflict with its brother tetex-extra. The only one of
> these that exist in woody are
>
> - tetex-eurosym.
>
> Here we have a problem. Currently tetex-extra replaces tetex-eurosym,
> and Conflicts with it. From a packaging point of view, it is o.k. for
> tetex-extra-fonts to not declare any relationship to
> tetex-eurosym. However, the files previously in tetex-eurosym are now
> in two packages, tetex-extra and tetex-extra-fonts.
>
> Hm. Ugly. One option would be to have a pseudo-package tetex-eurosym
> that depends on both tetex-extra and tetex-extra-fonts. The other
> would be to simply ignore this and only document in README.Debian that
> the type1 fonts for eurosym are now in tetex-extra-fonts.
>
I prefer the latter. We can document it in the changelog.
> +Replaces: textfm, latex, texidoc, texpsfnt, mfbasfnt, mfnfss,
> +amsfonts, amstex, amslatex, ltxmisc, ltxtool, psnfss, mfdcfnt,
> +mflib, pandora, hyperref, cspsfonts, tetex-bin (<<
> +1.0.7+20021025-3), tetex-french, tetex-nonfree, pb-diagram,
> +tetex-base (<< 2.0-2), tetex-eurosym
>
> This is for sure incorrect. I think it just cannot replace anything,
> because it will never contain all files of one of these packages. And it
> doesn't need to, as long as we get the conflicts and depends correct.
>
I'll put some packages out, which don't make sense to me.
> diff -urN debian.orig/copyr.type1 debian/copyr.type1
> --- debian.orig/copyr.type1 Thu Jan 1 01:00:00 1970
> +++ debian/copyr.type1 Wed Feb 11 10:54:49 2004
>
> This file should be named tetex-extra-fonts.copyright and be installed
> as /usr/share/doc/tetex-extra-fonts/copyright.
>
Done. Still have problems with the changelog-file. I provide
tetex-extra-type1.changes (tetex-extra-fonts was renamed to
tetex-extra-type1) and install it as
/usr/share/doc/tetex-extra-type1/changelog.gz . It has a Debianish
style, but will be much more short than the changelog.Debian of the
main package.
<quote src=policy>
If the package has only one changelog which is used both as the
Debian changelog and the upstream one because there is no separate
upstream maintainer then that changelog should usually be installed
as /usr/share/doc/package/changelog.gz; if there is a separate
upstream maintainer, but no upstream changelog, then the Debian
changelog should still be called changelog.Debian.gz.
</quote>
Which of both cases apply?
> + ln -s `cat debian/tetex-extra-fonts.files|sed s#^u#\/u#g` debian/tetex-base/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1/
>
> This doesn't do what it should. I don't know why - in the shell it
> does. But on my system, no links are created at all.
>
Actually I'm using dh_link. So done.
Hilmar
--
sigmentation fault
Reply to: