Re: Recent Woody upgrade, TeTeX, XFree86, and Mozilla
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:47:50AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > 2. During the tetex upgrade I was surprised to see the following:
> > >
> > > texhash: Updating /usr/local/lib/texmf/ls-R...
> > >
> > > Debian packages are NOT supposed to muck around in /usr/local!!!!!
> >
> > I think this stuff is allowed, actually, like that emacs site-lisp whatever
> > it is... if anything, several packages do it, it can't be harmful. (Can it?)
It seems to me that the script assumes that the admin would have used
texhash/mktexlsr to generate the ls-R file anyway, so it does it instead. If
that assumption is wrong, which seems likely, then I guess you can file a
critical bug against the package (`makes unrelated software on the system
break').
I commented hastily and without thinking it through, sorry.
> > > Is there any reason that we can't include progeny's version of Mozilla in
> > > Debian Woody until such time as our maintainer delivers his release.
> > ~~~~~ sid/unstable
> >
> > FWIW I agree... so what if the package is not tiptop, it's good enough for
> > unstable.
>
> Well, I don't know where you get the "not tiptop" from. The Progeny
> release has a working psm and the release in Debian doesn't. Which one is
> not "tiptop"?
It's a 9 MB package that takes over 26 MB of disk space to install, surely
that's not the best way to package it.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: