Re: for sarge-release

[frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster)]

Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp> schrieb:

>> I'm willing to adopt Frank's idea of language.dat handling
>> and I'll remove unnecessary (duplicated) lines from postinst
>> of tetex-base and apply a patch of him.  (I assume Frank intends
>> to fix this until sarge.)
>
> Done.  Franks patch was for 2.0.2-6 and there was a 
> slight error with postinst of 2.0.2-7 so I got 2.0.2-6 
> and applied the patch and copied the generated postinst
> to the new source tree.  I believe this was correct.

Yes, looks good. 

> Further, I cleaned up relation with tetex-*, i.e.
> removed Replaces: tetex-* and added it to Conflicts:
> line.
>
> What I'm not sure is, with the patch of Frank, I suspect
> it would be necessary for tetex-bin to 
> Conflicts: tetex-base (<<2.0.2-6)

I'm not sure this is necessary. Of course we have to make tetex-base and
tetex-bin mutually depend on the new versions (bin on base_2.0.2-6 and
base on bin_2.0.2-8). But since there are no files that are overwritten,
and all the changes to the filesystem are in the postinst (or *rm)
scripts, I currently don't see why we have to conflict?

> Further, it seemed 15th March was one of goal line 
> for sarge release.  There might be not so much time left
> for us...

Wasn't it rather that on that date the next progress report for the
installer is scheduled, and it is planned to semi-freeze base packages
from then on?

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie