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

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



On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 22:18:03 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:

> Hi Julien, hi all,
> 
> On Sa, 11 Sep 2010, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Currently I have nothing in the queue, but if you want I can still wait
> a bit.
> 
Whichever you prefer, I don't mind.

> > > 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.
> 
> Yes that is true, but it duplicates information in a way that one might
> believe there is telxive-base-bin and the binaries. The very same docs
> are shipped now in different packages, so yes, in principle it should
> not harm, but we did it for cleaning up the upgrade 2007->2009.
> 
> If you prefer I can revert it.
> 
Conflicts create problems for upgrades so if this is not strictly
necessary then yes, please revert it.

> > > 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.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> So I wait for your suggestion regarding the above two points (wait with
> texlive-extra, revert the conflict) and will upload.
> 
Thanks for your work.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: