Suggestion: add a dummy package texlive-base-bin 2009.
Hi!
Please CC me since I am not subscribed to the list.
I try to test the upgrade of Texlive from sid to the 2009 version from:
deb http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ tl2009/
This repository has an apt priority of 995. When I run aptitude
full-upgrade, I get the proposition in attachment. A summary would be
that since many packages conflict with texlive-base-bin <2008, aptitude
would rather not upgrade the packages instead of installing
texlive-binaries and removing texlive-base-bin.
I was thinking that maybe a solution would be to provide a dummy package
texlive-base-bin 2009, that would do nothing but depend on
telive-binaries. This package could be then removed safely. This is just
a suggestion, but maybe this would ease the transition.
What do you think?
Best regards,
Cédric
domino:/# aptitude upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information... Done
Initializing package states... Done
Writing extended state information... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
Resolving dependencies...
The following packages will be upgraded:
lmodern
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 15 not upgraded.
Need to get 18.2MB of archives. After unpacking 545kB will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] n
Abort.
domino:/# aptitude full-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information... Done
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
The following packages are BROKEN:
luatex texlive-base texlive-binaries texlive-common texlive-latex-recommended
The following NEW packages will be installed:
feynmf{a} libmagick++2{a} libplot2c2{a} libpstoedit0c2a{a} pstoedit{a} purifyeps{a} texlive-font-utils{a}
texlive-luatex{a} texlive-metapost{a} texlive-metapost-doc{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
lmodern tex-common texlive texlive-doc-base texlive-extra-utils texlive-fonts-recommended
texlive-fonts-recommended-doc texlive-generic-recommended texlive-latex-base texlive-latex-base-doc
texlive-latex-recommended-doc texlive-pstricks texlive-pstricks-doc
16 packages upgraded, 12 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 220MB/221MB of archives. After unpacking 174MB will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
texlive-common: Conflicts: texlive-base-bin (< 2008) but 2007.dfsg.2-8 is installed.
luatex: Conflicts: texlive-base-bin (< 2008) but 2007.dfsg.2-8 is installed.
texlive-latex-recommended: Conflicts: texlive-base-bin (< 2008) but 2007.dfsg.2-8 is installed.
texlive-binaries: Conflicts: texlive-base-bin but 2007.dfsg.2-8 is installed.
texlive-base: Conflicts: texlive-base-bin (< 2008) but 2007.dfsg.2-8 is installed.
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Keep the following packages at their current version:
feynmf [Not Installed]
luatex [Not Installed]
purifyeps [Not Installed]
tex-common [1.20 (unstable, now)]
texlive [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-base [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-binaries [Not Installed]
texlive-common [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-doc-base [2007.dfsg.2-2 (unstable, now)]
texlive-extra-utils [2007.dfsg.2-8 (unstable, now)]
texlive-font-utils [Not Installed]
texlive-fonts-recommended [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-fonts-recommended-doc [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-generic-recommended [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-latex-base [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-latex-base-doc [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-latex-recommended [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-latex-recommended-doc [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now)]
texlive-luatex [Not Installed]
texlive-metapost [Not Installed]
texlive-metapost-doc [Not Installed]
texlive-pstricks [2007.dfsg.17-2 (unstable, now)]
texlive-pstricks-doc [2007.dfsg.17-2 (unstable, now)]
Leave the following dependencies unresolved:
luatex recommends texlive-luatex
Tier: Safe actions (10000)
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?]
Reply to: