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

Re: Upgrade procedure for tetex

'Vincent Renardias wrote:'
>On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
>> 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.
>	Before to do this, could we try to change the preinst script of 
>tetex to detect if the previous version of TeX is installed as it has 
>already been proposed here? This scheme has been working for several 
>packages, so why not tetex? (Of course if for some reason it doesn't 
>work, we'll have to delay tetex a bit more).

Because having a major part of the system not be smothly upgradeable is
unacceptable.  My understanding of this hack is the postinst would
explain how to manually upgrade the tex packages and then bail.
Although this would obviously work (to the extent that dpkg wouldn't
blow up as it does now), I find it to be offensive to the strength of
Debian:  easy upgreadability.  Therefore, I say no to tetex.  They can
try again for the next unstable or better yet make a roll-our-own TeX
as was discussed and agreed to on debian-devel several months ago.

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: