Re: [ubuntu-science] Ubuntu patches for DDs
Ralf Stubner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 15:28 -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:
>> Ralf Stubner wrote:
>> Well, the source package was removed, but I looks to me like it was
>> reinserted (possibly during the move to LaunchPad). I'll track that down
>> with the archive team ASAP.
> Thank you for looking into this.
>> I think pitti or doko usually handle TeX stuff. It could be we just need
>> more people looking after it. We sync to Debian unstable so we should
>> have the auctex package from Debian unstable at least as of Jan. 23rd
>> with was the Upstream Version Freeze. I see that auctex 11.81-2 was
>> pushed out on Jan. 21st so that was probably a little late for it to
>> have been done automatically.
> Ah, Jan, 21st. That also explains why Dapper still has lmodern v0.92,
> since v0.99.3 was uploaded on Feb, 11st. In general it might make sense
> to have a few people look after the respective Debian packages such that
> important bugfixes can be incorporated even after Upstream Version
> Freeze. See that tetex-base bug I mentioned.
Well, I do try, but the MOTU Science (which has about 3 really active
members including me) team is trying to keep track of over 450 source
packages. I do try to keep track of TeX stuff but to be honest there is
just so much that stuff that I can't realistically keep on top of
everything. At first we tried tracking the whole tex section and that
just proved way too much for us. Right now I've tried to add packages
that are of interest specifically to scientists.  is a list that
includes those packages. If you guys can suggest other packages that are
especially critical for us to track please let me know and I can try to
add them since I don't think anyone else in particular is tracking TeX
packages in general. I did get several UVF exceptions in during Dapper
and hopefully Edgy will be even better since we streamlined the UVF
exception process quite a bit.
> In addition, looking into the bugs filed against TeX related packages
> would be helpful. For example, there is one bug against tetex-base
> (status confirmed) where the last message claims that the default output
> format of teTeX 3.0 is PDF. This is completely wrong! Just have a look
> into the documentation ('texdoc TETEXDOC', pdfetex is the defualt
> engine, since it can also be used for creating DVI files). Most likely
> the bug reporter uses a broken test for pdftex and should switch to
> ifpdf.sty. It would be nice if the right information would get into such
> bug reports.
Yeah, I totally agree that we need to have accurate bug information. My
problem has been that I just simply don't have enough in-depth knowledge
of TeX to be of much help. I'm pretty much just a generic LaTeX user
(for writing dissertation and research papers). What I would like is to
be able to contact you guys (since you know the packages way more than
me) if I'm unsure of anything. Any objections to that? The only problem
is that some of the Ubuntu TeX packages are in the Main repository
(tetex-base, tetex-bin, and a few others). I can't directly upload those
since I'm only a Universe maintainer. I can however attach patches or
bug Main devs :-) . Anyway, just some thoughts.