Re: Recent Woody upgrade, TeTeX, XFree86, and Mozilla
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 04:44:02AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So, which of the various tet-tex packages do I bug report?
I'm not sure. Try grepping for mktexlsr or texhash in
/var/lib/dpkg/info/t*.p*
> Does lintian check this sort of violation? (I could then figure it out
> from my .deb cache)
I don't think it does. (It would seem hard to check for such a thing, too)
> Does apt-get log its activity?
Not automatically.
> > > > > 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.
>
> Let me put it this way. Currently the unstable release of Mozilla is 0 MB,
> the available replacement for this package is 26 MB and produces actual
> functionality that the 0 MB package doesn't. Which would you rather have.
>
> Or yet another way: The stable version is 9 MB but can't communicate with
> my bank, but the 26 MB version can. Is 15 MB such a large price to pay?
You do understand that I agree with you? :) My comment was about not being
tiptop, I said it's fine for unstable...
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: