[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds

Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> wrote:

> Frank Küster wrote:
>> Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> 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 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
>> tex-common. 
> 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?

Regards, Frank
Dr. Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg

Reply to: