Re: Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> Luk Claes <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Norbert Preining wrote:
>>>> On Do, 04 Jun 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
>>>>> Except for arguing, mixing (non?) bugs and resisting to upload an easy
>>>>> workaround might have made things worse btw...
>>>> And that easy workaround would be???
>>> To only conditionaly use a command that seems to not always be available.
>> COULD YOU PLEASE START READING WHAT WE ARE WRITING?
> Could you please do that from the start and not spread fud and shout all
> the time?
I still think that I have tried to give technical arguments all the
time, until I had to should this time. I've not yet read one from you,
it was Agustin who helped.
>> texlive-base's postrm, upon REMOVE, uses a command from tex-common, on
>> which it already DEPENDS. This is allowed by policy.
> Sure, though policy not describing what really happens will only make it
> a bug in policy AND your package...
Sad but true.
>> The fact that in this particular chroot, texlive-base was installed
>> without tex-common being installed, or even unpacked, is NOT A BUG OF
> Sure it is.
Err, that I still don't understand.
I agree that it's a bug in texlive-base not to be able to cope with
that. But how can it be a bug of package b that it is not installed,
when package a depends on it and is installed?
Dr. Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg