Re: status of tetex-base

["C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>]

"AK"  == Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp> 
"CMC" == C.M. Connelly <cmc@debian.org>

Atsuhito,

    CMC> There have been a lot of changes to tetex-base, most of
    CMC> which you probably won't have seen as they're taking place
    CMC> on a branch off the main trunk.  To get the sources I built
    CMC> from, you'll have to run the following command to switch
    CMC> your working copy over to the branch:
    CMC> 
    CMC> cvs update -r license_cleanup

    AK> Is this branch merged in main repository or not yet?

I never merged it, so I'd guess not.


    CMC> As I see it, the options available to us are
    CMC> 
    CMC> 1. I just hang on to the modified debian/rules until I have
    CMC> time to work on the empty directory problem
    CMC> 
    CMC> 2. I commit the changes, and someone else can work on the
    CMC> problem
    CMC> 
    CMC> 3. I commit the changes on yet another branch, and we just
    CMC> ignore it for now

    AK> Is there any advance in this point?

No, I never checked those files in.  From what I recall, the
changes I made resulted in packages containing slightly different
sets of files than the old rules files.  My general impression was
that they included more files that we should have been including
but weren't, but I think there may also have been some files
moving from one package to another.  (A possible (but not
verified) example, would be for some documentation that was
accidentally getting placed into tetex-base in the old packages
ending up in tetex-doc where it belonged.)


    AK> I believe that license_cleanup branch passed enough time
    AK> to be merged in main repository, and if it was already
    AK> done, then number 2 of the above options (with
    AK> license_cleanup branch?) might be good.

The packages I built were built from that branch (and thus didn't
include the various files that we pulled due to licensing
issues).  If you built packages from the trunk, then the
problematic files should have crept back.

I'm fine with merging the branches, and I don't think it would be
that complicated (although I suspect that just switching over to
newer upstream source might be better, not counting the debian/
directory).

If you wanted to do the merge, we could then create a new branch,
into which I could check in the modified rules files.  That way if
they make dramatically different packages, we would be able to
tinker without affecting our ability to create working packages.

I can also send you the changed files directly, avoiding the CVS
repository until we're all happy with them.

   Claire

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
 Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his
	    spare time; only by what he does as his work.
			     W.R. Lethaby
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
  C.M. Connelly               c@eskimo.com                   SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+