Re: Please test new tetex packages for woody
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
Subject: Re: Please test new tetex packages for woody
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 10:46:19 +0200 (CEST)
> > > I have prepared new tetex-base and tetex-bin packages for woody. The most
> >
> > Thanks for your efforts, Adrian. I only look through them roughly
> > yet but noticed several problems.
>
> Thanks for your comments, below are my comments on them.
>
> > > tetex-base (1.0.2-2) unstable; urgency=high
> >
> > You should remove txi-{cs,de,no}.tex which are duplicated with
> > texinfo package. This is Bug#65825 which you, Adrian, reported :)
>
> These packages are mainly for fixing the "exit 1"-bug.
I see, that is your basic standpoint.
> These packages are mainly for fixing the "exit 1"-bug. I did include some
> other small bug fixes, but in this case I wasn't sure how to fix it
> (can I simply remove these files without breaking anything?) and I can't
> see why these packages must fix this "normal" bug.
I think simply removing these files causes no problem but
it might be not so urgent problem.
> > I am not sure but it might be better to include
> > doc/latex/koma-script/README, doc/latex/seminar/sem-read.me
> > as, for example, copyright.koma-script, copyright.seminar
> > because there are contradicting statements in other files.
>
> In which files did you find the contradicting statements?
For example doc/latex/koma-script/readme.txt says
You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or use of
either this file or a changed version, except for a nominal charge for
copying etc.
and seminar.sty itself says
%% You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or use of
%% these files or modified versions or fragments thereof, except for
%% a nominal charge for copying etc.
Theses are corrected by doc/latex/koma-script/README and
doc/latex/seminar/sem-read.me
Of course you can add some comments to README.Debian or so
if you think it more appropriate.
> > It might also be better to include "stmaryrd.dtx" which
> > you can find in teTeX-texmfsrc-1.0.1.tar.gz of CTAN site.
> >...
> > > however, AFAIK, stmaryrd.dtx is not included in any tetex-* packages.
> > > It is included in the original teTeX-texmfsrc.
>
> I will ask Christoph in a mail if he wants to or if I can update
> tetex-src. He is listed as the maintainer of the package.
Okay, perhaps tetex-src is obsolete now and needs to be updated.
> > And at last but not at least, I think it is important
> > to fix
> >
> > From: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>
> > Subject: Bug#65961: tetex-base/tetex-nonfree: serious license problems
> > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:16:18 +0100
> >
> > but not only you but almost all staffs here seem to neglect(?)
> > this issue. I am very glad if you test the script
> > and make tetex-base clean!
> >...
>
> Same as above: I don't want to change anything if I'm not sure if it can
> break something.
>
> > And also about this
> >
> > > tetex-bin (1.0.7-2) unstable; urgency=high
> >
> > there is a security issue and I sent the following patch
> > a long time ago. This is for 1.0.6 but it works well with
> > 1.0.7 like
> >...
>
> Same as above, and I would prefer to send this bug report to upstream
> first.
I see that you try to fix the most fundamental bugs only.
I think Adrian's work is great and I would like to hear
the idear or opinion from others.
We should be more active! shouldn't we?
Best Regards, 2000.6.26
--
Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Reply to: