Bug#169902: revtex4 and tetex-extra conflict
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>
> Thanks for your kind suggestion. I think that it might
> be better to remove revtex4 rather than to drop revtex4
> from tetex-extra.
>
Ok.
> But because I don't know about revtex4 so I would like
> to know if revtex4 of tetex-extra is a complete set of
> revtex4 or not, before requesting removal of revtex4.
>
> If possible, please investigate and let me know if tetex-extra
> is good enough to replace revtex4 package or not.
I have checked your packages.
tetex-extra 1.0.2+20021025-2 does provide all revtex4 stylefiles
and
tetex-doc 1.0.2+20021025-2 does provide all the documentation.
Thus there is no need in revtex4 anymore. I think the proper way to handle
the conflict is to make an empty dummy package revtex4_4.0-3, which depends
on tetex-extra (>= 1.0.2+20021025-2), and have tetex-extra conflict not with
any revtex4, but only with (<= 4.0-2). This will make woody->sarge upgrade
smooth. I think it has to be done, because the description of tetex-extra
does not (and probably should not) mention revtex4 and users of revtex4 may
be quite surprised when tetex-extra, which never provided revtex before,
forces them to remove revtex4 without any explanation.
I have already done my part - an empty dummy package revtex4_4.0-3, with
"Depends: tetex-extra (>= 1.0.2+20021025-2)", has been uploaded today. It
would be great if you change tetex-extra from "Conflicts: revtex4" to
"Conflicts: revtex4 (<= 4.0-2)". If you don't mind, I will file a bug about
it, as a reminder for you.
I am also going to transfer revtex4's only bug, #156812, to tetex-extra. This
is an upstream bug, and the patch provided by the bug submitter does not fix
the problem entirely. The bug is very minor, and I decided that it is better
to keep upstream-provided package intact; the bug submitter agreed with me.
Probably adding [wontfix] tag would be appropriate.
Best regards,
Alexei Kaminski
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE96mZ7xdagDsAIz8MRAjQgAJwN6jMQvXH+ziWbBpCy7bcYJvXZIQCfZ9qa
sRM+3l1kctkCkBUSQttffX8=
=F92E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: