Bug#61293: marked as done (Removal leaves /etc/texmf, /usr/lib/texmf)
Your message dated Fri, 29 Nov 2002 03:32:41 -0500
with message-id <E18HgZl-0001AO-00@auric.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#61293: fixed in tetex-base 1.0.2+20021025-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Mar 2000 03:01:49 +0000
Received: (qmail 16761 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2000 03:01:49 -0000
Received: from nat-su-33.valinux.com (HELO tytlal.su.valinux.com) (198.186.202.33)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 29 Mar 2000 03:01:49 -0000
Received: from chip by tytlal.su.valinux.com with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 12a8jv-0000x3-00
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:01:51 -0800
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:01:50 -0800
From: Chip Salzenberg <chip@valinux.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Removal leaves /etc/texmf, /usr/lib/texmf
Message-ID: <20000328190150.G2646@perlsupport.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.9i
Sender: Chip Salzenberg <chip@perlsupport.com>
Package: tetex-base
Version: 1.0-8
After purging all tetex packages, /etc/texmf and /var/lib/texmf
still remain. The former has lots of stuff in it, but the latter
has only "ls-lR".
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <chip@valinux.com>
"I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence,
but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 61293-close) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Nov 2002 08:38:19 +0000
>From katie@auric.debian.org Fri Nov 29 02:38:18 2002
Return-path: <katie@auric.debian.org>
Received: from auric.debian.org [206.246.226.45] (mail)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18HgfC-0003FX-00; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 02:38:18 -0600
Received: from katie by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 18HgZl-0001AO-00; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 03:32:41 -0500
From: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
To: 61293-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.28 $
Subject: Bug#61293: fixed in tetex-base 1.0.2+20021025-2
Message-Id: <E18HgZl-0001AO-00@auric.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@auric.debian.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 03:32:41 -0500
Delivered-To: 61293-close@bugs.debian.org
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-base, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-2.diff.gz
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-2.diff.gz
tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-2.dsc
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-2.dsc
tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-2_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-2_all.deb
tetex-doc_1.0.2+20021025-2_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_1.0.2+20021025-2_all.deb
tetex-extra_1.0.2+20021025-2_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_1.0.2+20021025-2_all.deb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 61293@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org> (supplier of updated tetex-base package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:15:02 +0900
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.0.2+20021025-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
Description:
tetex-base - basic teTeX library files
tetex-doc - teTeX documentation
tetex-extra - extra teTeX library files
Closes: 61293 141988 159939 165732 167920 169799 169937
Changes:
tetex-base (1.0.2+20021025-2) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Added lost directories at cvs-upgrade. [kohda]
* Removed very obsolete 'babel' from Conflicts/Replaces entries. This was
a bug of serious, so we should fix this. [kohda] (Closes: #169799)
* Changed the condition in postinst from "if [ ! -e /usr/share/texmf/doc ]"
to "if [ ! -L /usr/share/texmf/doc ]" This might fix #170592 [kohda]
* Now remove /etc/texmf (and /var/cache/fonts) at purge by postrm. [kohda]
(Closes: #61293)
* Setted Conflicts/Replace with old tetex-bin because prologues for dvips
was moved in tetex-bin now.
* ttlkeys.def was included in the upstream source so I stopped fiddling
with it. [kohda]
* Added cspsfonts (tetex-base) and revtex4 (tetex-extra) to Conflicts
field. [kohda] (Closes: #159939, #169937)
* Following bugs could be closed. [kohda]
- newhelpindex.html could display the links. (closes: #141988)
- pool size was large enough. (closes: #165732)
- installed booktabs again. (closes: #167920)
Files:
ee081e3aee9407c20bf736dfdf6aa36c 807 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-2.dsc
9fac5b8f2c006a63248cad1d045101fd 35194 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-2.diff.gz
76409ff17883faf7b66a4e0379cb4d90 17695442 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-2_all.deb
6ffa2f533e9f8e7be999d740534eea66 10317094 tex optional tetex-extra_1.0.2+20021025-2_all.deb
95c13643b66830d6c01a9fb98b442ff8 21189170 tex optional tetex-doc_1.0.2+20021025-2_all.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE95w7F1IXdL1v6kOwRAttIAJkBadygIpaqN0waFTK0GZgT4SnrbgCaA0+d
X2vu60dqE59typYfLbKqn4c=
=4CMd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: