Re: Upgrade procedure for tetex
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Fearnley <cjf@netaxs.com> writes:
>> It sounds to me like almost all of the problems are in the
>> packaging and not bugs in the code itself. Am I correct on this?
Chris> I don't know. I don't dare install something as buggy as the
Chris> current tetex.
>> If that is the case, do people feel that this packaging could be
>> fixed within the month while bo is frozen?
Chris> There is no way to answer this at this point in time. It could
Chris> take a week or three months. How can anyone predict? FWIW, If
Chris> I were the maintainer it would take more than one month because
Chris> I don't have that much spare time. Hopefully our tetex
Chris> maintainers are unemployed ...
Chris> I strongly feel that the current package is totally
Chris> unacceptable for a stable release. ...
Chris, your comments are neither informative nor helpful. ``Buggy
software'', ``totally unacceptable'' don't mean alot. All your
previous posts in essence suggested only 2 problems: (1) conflict,
replace and provide (2) removing all old Debian TeX before installing
tetex.
(1) is a packaging problem. Once a set of conflict, replace and
provide is agreed upon, it can be fixed in no time.
(2) is more of a problem but a quick fix is certainly possible. Were
you here when we had the 0.93 (a.out) to 1.1 (ELF) upgrade?
dselect/dpkg didn't provide an ``easy'' upgarde and there was an
upgarde directory holding scripts to perform the upgrade. According
to your definition, 1.1 was ``totally unacceptable'' because it broke
dselect and 1.1 should be fixed. Did you voice your concern?
Bottom line: We have to weight between the gains and problems of
the new tetex packages against those of the old Debian TeX. Given the
amount of problems reported on the old Debian TeX, it is justified to
aim to put tetex in 1.3.
Regards,
--
Billy C.-M. Chow <cmchow@se.cuhk.edu.hk>
Department of Systems Engineering
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Received: (qmail 16376 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 22:13:28 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-lists--devel@master.debian.org
Received: (qmail 16369 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 22:13:27 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Received: (qmail 16360 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1997 22:13:26 -0000
Received: from casa.vaca.net (207.121.128.2)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 1997 22:13:26 -0000
Received: from whoever (ip204.moorestown.nj.pub-ip.psi.net [38.14.101.204])
by casa.vaca.net (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP
id AAA128; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:04:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:45:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Grobman <igor@vaca.net>
X-Sender: igor@whoever
To: dwarf@polaris.net
cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Where can I get commercial support for Debain? (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95q.970304173948.1291B-100000@whoever>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dale,
I remember you were working on setting up a tech support line. Is it
available yet? Please answer to the person requesting this directly.
I am also sending this to debian-devel in case anyone else is also
planning to provide the tech support.
__
Proudly running Debian Linux! Linux vs. Windows is a no-Win situation....
Igor Grobman igor@vaca.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 21:31:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: Rod Gotty <gotty@rd1.racal.com>
To: igor@vaca.net
Subject: Where can I get commercial support for Debain?
Igor:
I noticed your signature line indicates your support for Debian Linux.
So, maybe you can help me with a problem I have. I'm trying to settle
on a Linux distribution to be shipped with a computer system I'm
putting together. I expect to be selling a number of them and I don't
want to have to support the Linux installation on each of them. If I
go to a distribution by RedHat, I can partner with Red Hat Software,
Inc. so that my customers call Red Hat Software, Inc. when they have a
question/problem. Is there any equivalent commercial organization
that could do the same for Debain?
Thanks
=Rod
Received: (qmail 16792 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 22:14:30 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-lists--user@master.debian.org
Received: (qmail 16790 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 22:14:30 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Received: (qmail 16787 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1997 22:14:29 -0000
Received: from bnl.gov (130.199.128.163)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 1997 22:14:29 -0000
Received: from sun10.sep.bnl.gov.sep (sun10.sep.bnl.gov [130.199.50.6]) by bnl.gov (8.7.5/8.7.1) with SMTP id RAA06239; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:06:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sun10.sep.bnl.gov.sep (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA25231; Tue, 4 Mar 97 17:09:45 EST
From: sailer@sun10.sep.bnl.gov (Tim Sailer)
Message-Id: <9703042209.AA25231@sun10.sep.bnl.gov.sep>
Subject: Re: Why is PPP so screwed up!?!?!
To: williamc@uclink2.berkeley.edu (William Chow)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:09:45 -0500 (EST)
Cc: cas@taz.net.au, jemenake@lab.busfac.calpoly.edu,
debian-user@lists.debian.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.ULT.3.93.970303222949.12451A-100000@uclink2.berkeley.edu> from "William Chow" at Mar 3, 97 10:45:39 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
Content-Type: text
In your email to me, William Chow, you wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Craig Sanders wrote:
Mr Chow and Mr Sanders,
If you must dig at each other, please take it to private email.
Debian-user is not the place.
Tim
--
(work) sailer@bnl.gov / (home) tps@buoy.com - http://www.buoy.com/~tps
Madness takes its toll...
Please have exact change!
** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my own.**
Reply to: