Re: Upgrade procedure for tetex
'Christian Schwarz wrote:'
>
>On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
>> 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)?
>
>You probably missed my announcement a few days ago.
>
>In short: There were several good arguments for both sides (own TeX or
>tetex), but we had to make a discussion some time.
>
>First I wanted to work on the old packages but then Chow Chi-Ming and
>Christoph Martin both had start to debianize teTeX so I had a look at
>their packages. There were some minor problems with the directory
>structure but these were easily fixed with the help of Thomas Esser
>(author of tetex).
I saw your post. I did not see a post to this effect at the end of the
public debate. My memory of the conclusion from the public debate was
that Debian should roll its own. If no one stepped forward to do it
that way, then as an expedient to getting the recent version of LaTeX I
will (with some regrets) accept the move to tetex.
>The only problem that remains is the "Replaces" problem, which is in fact
>not a problem of the tetex* packages but of dpkg. I already contacted Klee
>about it (the new dpkg maintainer). He says he will take a look but the
>change will probably be too late for 1.3.
I diagree, the tetex packages have bad Conflicts:, Replaces, and
Provides: which causes the problem.
>So I suggest that we add a check to the preinst script (just as netscape
>does it) and tell the user about how to upgrade the packages.
No, we need to fix the packaging.
--
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: