Re: Bug#197954: tetex-base: Upgrade failure in testing with removal of pxfonts (and description of work around)
From: Mike Dornberger <Mike.Dornberger@student.uni-magdeburg.de>
Subject: Bug#197954: tetex-base: Upgrade failure in testing with removal of pxfonts (and description of work around)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:08:45 +0200
> There were various questions about changed conffiles of two or more tetex
> packages, but I never touched them before. This could confuse users
> when upgrading from woody to sarge (when it is released) and maybe could be
> harmful if they use the default, what is not to install the new conffiles.
> (Should I post a new bug report for that?) But it could also be, that there
> was another version of tetex in testing and the problem doesn't arise.
It is not so clear what conffiles were relevant but
some conffiles were moved between tetex-base and tetex-extra
and I heard that, in these cases, dselect (or dpkg?) would
ask question even if they were not modified (not so sure,
however).
If I was allowed to say my experience, I had experienced
both behavior; that is, I had been asked about changed conffiles
even I never touched them but also I had seen automatic replacing
with new conffiles.
At least, I believe this will not happen for every system
in every time and, basically, this is not a prblem of tetex
packages (but of dpkg?).
> And a minor other thing: While one sees (in dselect) that tetex-extra
> provides tetex-eurosym and texdoctk, a Provides: pxfonts, txfonts could be
> added to tetex-base. (I don't like to have conffiles from superseded
> packages on my system.)
If there are packages which depend on pxfonts really then
Provides: pxfonts is necessary but if not it might be almost
useless to set Provides: pxfonts (same for txfonts).
(I didn't check it yet.)
I'm willing to add Provides: pxfonts if it is really necessary.
Thanks, 2003-7-18(Fri)
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Reply to: