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

Re: another two freez exceptions for texlive-base and texlice-extra



On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 06:06:32 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:

> Dear release managers,
> 
> we have prepared two more packages, one for texlive-base and one for
> texlivve-extra which we would like to get into squeeze.
> 
> Let's start with the easy one:
> 
> texlive-extra 2009-10
> 
>   * add the forgotten epoch for musixtex dependency (Closes: #587746)
> 
> This chnage is trivail, it only adds the forgotten epco to musixtex
> dependency, which was not included in the upload before. It is not
> aserious issue, since there are no other musixtex packages around
> anyway.
> 
If there's likely to be other changes before release I'd rather defer
this.  Otherwise go ahead.

> More difficult is the situation with texlive-base:
> 
> texlive-base 2009-11
> 
>    * texlive-base conflict with texlive-base-bin-doc to get it removed
>      (Closes: #589205)
>    * avoid unneeded 10texlive-base.cnfpre-edit files in /etc/texmf/fmt.d,
>      thanks Jörg-Volker Peetz (Closes: #584950)
> 
> The first item is harmless, more important is the second.
> 
I don't understand the rationale for the first item.  If the old package
is not doing any actual harm then conflicting with it isn't necessary.

> It comes from a long history: While upgrading from 2005 -> 2007 packages
> we carried over some configurations from texlive-base-bin.cnf in
> /etc/texmf/fmt.d into texlive-base.cnf (same dir).
> 
> These additional lines created some problem in the 2009 version, as
> the 2009 version of fmtutil introduced a loop detection mechanism so
> that mutliple format definitions are leading to an error.
> 
> The code in the texlive-base.postinst in the *current* version in testing
> now unconditionally edits texlive-base.cnf in place creating a backup
> file
>         /etc/texmf/fmt.d/texlive-base.cnfpre-edit
> even if no changes were necessary (i.e., when you have not upgraded all
> the way from etch).
> 
> The change in this package no protects this in place editing with
> a check whether the actual target line really occurs.
> 
Sounds ok.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: