[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Upgrade procedure for tetex

>On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Christoph Martin wrote:
>> This is the upgrade procedure for tetex.

I think tetex should be removed from bo and the old tex reinstated.
The new packaging scheme is incompatible with a smooth upgrade process
and I haven't seen (nor been able to conceive) of any way to fix tetex
before the code freeze.  Any thoughts I have that /might/ work
(renaming all the tetex packages to names compatible with the old tex
in such a way that upgrading is possible) are extensive enough in
nature that risking keeping tetex in the distribution seems very unwise
to me.

I'm CC'ing Brian White and I'll submit a bug against ftp.debian.org in
a few days requesting the files be moved as indicated.  Unless, of
course, someone comes up with a procedure that will allow tetex to
install on old buzz/rex systems using dselect and without incident.

>	Since many users complained about the TeX packages of Debian, maybe 
>it would be good to drop these packages before the freeze, so that the 
>users don't get even more confused by 2 TeX distributions in Debian 1.3...


PS.  I remember that we had a discussion about rolling our own TeX.  I
was surprised to see tetex released at all.  Did I miss an anouncement
from the tetex team where they explained why they weren't going to
roll our own TeX (as had been agreed on debian-devel)?

Christopher J. Fearnley            |    Linux/Internet Consulting
cjf@netaxs.com, cjf@onit.net       |    UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf         |    (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf    |    Design Science Revolutionary
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller |    Explorer in Universe

Reply to: