Re: [etch] RC bug in tetex-base will break upgrade to lenny
Frank Küster wrote:
> Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, this would be considered, please upload to proposed-updates.
>
> I wrote "stable" as release, according to the developer's reference this
> should end up in proposed-updates. You'll do that yourself, but here's
> the source debdiff for convenience. The change in debian/rules is
> autogenerated by the clean target and completely irrelevant.
Yes, using 'stable' or 'proposed-updates' is both fine.
Please upload.
Cheers
Luk
> diff -u tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/postrm.in tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/postrm.in
> --- tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/postrm.in
> +++ tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/postrm.in
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> #!/bin/sh -e
> #
> # postrm maintainer script for the Debian tetex-base package.
> -# $Id: postrm.in 2087 2006-12-19 12:42:02Z frank $
> +# $Id: postrm.in 2878 2007-05-22 15:40:13Z frank $
> #
> # don't try to understand this generated script as installed with the package.
> # instead, look at the source files in the source package
> @@ -14,11 +14,8 @@
> BASE_UCF_FILES="/etc/texdoctk/texdocrc"
> DPKG_EXT="<:=$PURGE_EXTENSIONS:>"
>
> -UNUSED_CONFFILES="<:=$UNUSED_CONFFILES_BASE:>"
> PREINST_MOVE_EXT=<:=$PREINST_MOVE_EXT:>
> -FORMER_UCF="<:=$BASE_UCF:>"
>
> -UNUSED_CONFDIRS="<:=$UNUSED_CONFDIRS_BASE:>"
>
> ## Variables needed for upgrading
> generated="download35.map builtin35.map psfonts_t1.map psfonts_pk.map \
> @@ -70,13 +67,6 @@
> for oldconffile in /etc/texmf/pdftex/pdftex.cfg /etc/texmf/updmap.d/10tetex-base.cfg /etc/X11/app-defaults/XDvi; do
> remove_with_backups $oldconffile
> done
> - for oldconffile in $UNUSED_CONFFILES $FORMER_UCF; do
> - newname=`get_newfilename $oldconffile`
> - remove_with_backups /etc/texmf/$newname
> - done
> - for oldconfdir in $UNUSED_CONFDIRS; do
> - rmdir /etc/texmf/$oldconfdir 2>/dev/null || true
> - done
>
> ucf_purge $BASE_UCF_FILES
> ;;
> diff -u tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/rules tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/rules
> --- tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/rules
> +++ tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/rules
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> #!/usr/bin/make -f
> #
> # do not edit this file, instead edit rules.in!
> -# $Id: rules.in 2034 2006-12-11 07:19:37Z frank $
> +# $Id: rules 2087 2006-12-19 12:42:02Z frank $
>
> # The debian/rules(.in) file was nearly completely rewritten by
> # Frank Küster frank@debian.org in 2004, with patches by
> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@
> done
>
> # needs devscripts in etch or from backports.org
> - debchange --distribution sarge-backports -b --newversion 3.0.dfsg.3-5~bpo.1 "Recompiled for sarge."
> + debchange --distribution sarge-backports -b --newversion 3.0.dfsg.3-4~1~bpo.1 "Recompiled for sarge."
> debchange --append "No source changes."
>
> # need to remake rules
> diff -u tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/changelog tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/changelog
> --- tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/changelog
> +++ tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/changelog
> @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
> +tetex-base (3.0.dfsg.3-5etch1) stable; urgency=low
> +
> + * The postrm script does no longer remove lots of supposedly obsolete
> + files upon purge. These files are now again needed for texlive
> + (closes: #420390)
> + * Upload to stable-proposed-updates
> +
> + -- Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> Tue, 22 May 2007 17:40:52 +0200
> +
> tetex-base (3.0.dfsg.3-5) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * Fix a syntax error in the code that removes the obsolete conffile of
>
>
Reply to: