Re: FTBFS for Archetecture all package (Bug#167049)

[Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>]

At Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:47:31 -0800,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > > > Does documentation package of "Architecture: all" which has been build
> > > > properly in the stable but not in the unstable due to tetex differences
> > > > deserve to receive "serious" bug (RC bug) report or not?
> > > Yes, since it HAS the bug. It should, however, be tagged "sid", to make it
> > > clear that the package in "woody" doesn't have the problem.
> > 
> > This is completely unnecessary, for reference. 
> 
> Just to be sure.  
> 
> You mean SGML/TEX source for the reference document which is picky on
> the version of TEX used to build is aceptable an non RC bug package even
> if Junichi's autobulder can not handle it.

Why would it mean any different if my autobuilder does not handle
it.

It required manual interaction that is undocumented 
to build, working around a bug in tetex package postinst.

If the bug in tetex is fixed, then the bug is closed.
 
> Generated text (HTML/PS/PDF/PLAIN TEXT) are all usable.

If the generated text is usable, it is good enough for
a web page, but not for a Debian package.



regards,
	junichi