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

Re: RFS: thailatex (updated package)

On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 04:20:10PM +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2007 4:12 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <thep@linux.thai.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 03:28:15PM +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > Question:
> > >
> > > Where does debian/babel.sty come from? Shouldn't it be generated at
> > > build time or something?
> >
> > It was taken from tetex (now texlive) package, with patching to add
> > pointer to Thai macro file. Since patching files from other packages are
> > prohibited, the former maintainer had to divert it to the patched
> > version. Now that texlive has shipped it in a separate directory, it can
> > now co-exist. So, it's just patched and installed as-is. What I need to
> > do is keep it synchronized with texlive.
> Ah. Perhaps it would be appropriate to ask the upstream texlive people
> to add the patch in the next version?

I'm not sure. It would leave a dangling pointer there. And it might
require texlive to depend on or recommend thailatex.

> > > Please fix the following minor issues in the next version:
> > >
> > > No need for the final .0 in the standards-version.
> >
> > No problem. I just wonder if there is a common convention for this.
> > I find many packages use the four-digit versions.
> IIRC, iterations of the 4th digit are meant to be compatible so they
> don't need to be included.

So, the upgrade check list is supposed to be minor for 4th digit version
changes. But the check list for, for example, included changes
like startup scripts and files in /usr/share/doc, which might cause
restructuring for affected packages.

Theppitak Karoonboonyanan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: