Re: Upgrade procedure for tetex
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Fearnley <email@example.com> writes:
Chris> 'Chow Chi-Ming wrote:'
>>>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Fearnley <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I believe the original intention was that since teTeX is a well
>> designed and _complete_ (La)TeX installation for Unix platforms and
>> is quickly becoming the de facto standard, we should completely
>> replace the old Debian TeX with teTeX, ie tetex should Conflict
>> every single old Deban TeX package except the obvious packages that
>> are not in tetex, eg untex. Mixing tetex with packages/files that
>> mess with the tetex internal is not a good idea IMHO.
Chris> Tetex can't Conflict with every old TeX package; otherwise it
Chris> can't be installed by dselect. At minimum tetex must Provide:
Chris> all the old TeX packages which it replaces.
The idea is to _completely_ replace the old Debian TeX with teTeX
which is a _complete_ (La)TeX system. Why should tetex packages
provide _all_ old Debian TeX packages?
If there are a few packages outside of the tex section that depends on
some old Debian TeX, these can be repacked with the Depends field
adjusted to the appropriate tetex package.
Chris> Please look again at my packaging suggestions. Please rethink
Chris> what "Conflicts", and "Provides" means. I think it is
Chris> fundamental to Debian packages that they maintain easy
Chris> upgradeability. Although it would be interesting if dpkg had a
Chris> means to wholesale remove a bunch of packages based on the
Chris> promise that the new packages will replace them, this is not
Chris> the time to discuss this feature addition to dpkg. For now it
Chris> would seem best to try to fix the broken tetex packages.
Is there anything more we can do apart from getting the right
Conflits, Replaces, Provides? Sure, upgrading by dselect doesn't work
but an upgrade-script would help sidestep the problem. After all, we
need a special procedure and a few files for upgarding from 0.93 to
Chris> Another thought: I think you may need to use recursive
Chris> dependencies here: tetex-base may need to depend on tetex-bin
Chris> and vice versa.
Why should tetex-base depends on tetex-bin? tetex-base are just some
architecture independent library (macro) files. Does xlib6 depends on
any packages that provide binaries? Does texlib depends on texbin?
Chris> There are lots of tricks like this. I hope my suggestions help
Chris> you to fix tetex.
You may help by testing the tetex packages _and_ providing informative
Chris> But it's going to take a lot of work to fix. I still think
Chris> it's prudent to hold off until the next release.
>> All your suggestions are not serious problems and the only real
>> problem is having to completely remove the old Debian TeX before
>> installing tetex. there are already some good suggestions.
Chris> But that problem is the crux. I found the other suggestions
Chris> unsatisfactory. Any package that breaks dselect is broken and
Chris> should be fixed. tetex is fixable. Wishing that dpkg has some
Chris> feature that it doesn't have is NOT easily fixable.
As I mentioned before, the 0.93 to 1.1 upgrade broke dselect and did
it prevent us from fixing the problem by special scripts?
The thing is, once the old Debian TeX is purged and tetex installed,
we solve _many_ of the problems (installation _and_ usage) of the
Debian TeX and I think the effort to try to make it in 1.3 is
>> I really like to see tetex in 1.3.
Chris> Then work on reworking the dependency, replaces and provides so
Chris> that it upgrades easily.
How much time does it take to type in the dependency, replaces and
provides fields in the control files of tetex and recompile?
Chris> I need TeX too! [Although somehow I have managed to find the
Chris> old TeX useable.]
I too found the old TeX usable. But that is not enough. There are
many problem reports in debian-user and there are things that I really
would like to do and which are missing in the old TeX, eg. I can't
preview ps fonts using xdvi.
Billy C.-M. Chow <email@example.com>
Department of Systems Engineering
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Received: (qmail 131 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 23:17:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 127 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 23:17:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 103 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1997 23:17:15 -0000
Received: from hur-s0.fuller.edu (HELO waterf.org) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 1997 23:17:14 -0000
Received: from localhost [127.0.0.1] (debian)
by waterf.org with smtp (Exim 1.60 #1)
id 0w23KR-0001rz-00 (Debian); Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:08:43 -0800
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 15:08:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph <email@example.com>
To: Dale Scheetz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Upgrading RH 4.1 to bo
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Christoph wrote:
> > I satisfied dpkgs hunger for a database with
> > >/var/lib/dpkg/status
> > dpkg --clear-avail
> Way cool! This means that /var/lib/dpkg/info is not necessary for new
> installations? You just have to be willing to clean up the trash after the
/var/lib/dpkg/info is generated by unpacking the data.tar.gz from the
> Also, I assume that when you finally install dpkg that it builds and
> populates the alternatives, info, methods, parts, and updates directories?
> I can see where a script to copy all libraries into /usr/local, re-run
> ldconfig and then replace the links to point to the /usr/local copies and
> delete the original library copies. Then when the installation is complete
> for the new Debian system, just kill all the old links and wipe
> /usr/local. Does this sound right?
Never thought about that.
> How did you transition the init portion of the system?
dpkg -i sysvinit*.deb
did everything necessary including some fixes to the /etc/inittab file.
--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---
Please always CC me when replying to posts on mailing lists.