On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 01:12:03PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Mi, 18 Nov 2009, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > > None of them are broken, and etoolbox isn't really of use to anyone for > > that matter. We just pushed it into the archive to have the docs of > > apt-cache show biblatex gives me > Depends: ... texlive-latex-extra (>= 2009) ... > so it is not installable in unstable. That is what I wanted to say. > So the correct thing would have been to ask for uploading biblatex > to experimental as I did with lmodern. biblatex is *not* > installable. I don't consider it necessary to have all rdepends in experimental if those aren't experimental themselves. One big criteria for migration to testing is the availability of all dependencies. What sense does such criteria make if it's not allowed to have packages in unstable without all dependencies? It's not an uncommon situation. biblatex is installable with experimental and whoever can't deal with such minor issues shouldn't run unstable. I didn't break a stable release, not even testing; and it's not a big fat lib that's missing which would need binNMUs and whatever... it's just a package waiting on it's rdepends. I understand your concerns but especially in this case (where upstream not even considers biblatex very stable) I don't see the harm I've done. Use biblatex with experimental, or don't use it. :) Hauke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature