[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#200264: tetex-bin upgrade fails: conflict with texdoctk



Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> schrieb:

> On 13.04.04 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
>> Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > The problem here is that
>> > tetex-bin now contains files, which were once in texdoctk. An upgrade
>> > will fail if that package is installed, cause tetex-bin will not
>> > remove it.
>> > The fastest solution could be to remove that
>> >
>> > Conflicts: (...) texdoctk
>> > Replaces: (...) texdoctk
>> > Provides: (...) texdoctk
>> >
>> > from tetex-extra and swap it over to tetex-bin. That is not horribly
>> > correct, as some files in tetex-extra are necessary to run texdoctk
>> > (#190721). Anyway -- it will give us a smooth upgrade, even if
>> > tetex-extra were not installed, before upgrading.
>> 
>> The alternative would be to swap over these files from tetex-extra
>> to tetex-bin (not -base, as orignally suggested) when swapping the
>> dependencies.
>> 
> Dunno, if it is possible to transfer files from one orig.tar.gz to
> another one. Read: can we transfer files from one orig.tar.gz to the
> packages of another one?

No, we can't. But we can simply remove them from the deb-file for
tetex-extra, and manually add them to tetex-bin as a "Debian
addition". This is just a workaround, with the hope we won't need it any
more after sarge. Well, hope: We can just decide that in this case we
won't support upgrades from woody to post-sarge, and revert to the
current behavior.

Or we come up with a better splitting scheme after sarge is released. 

>> Does anybody have a list which files these are? 
>> 
> I guess in tetex-extra are only the dat-files, i.e.:
>
> /etc/texdoctk/texdoc-100.dat
> /etc/texdoctk/texdoc-102.dat
> /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc

Aha, that's not too big. How come you have texdoc-10{0,2}.dat - I only
have texdoctk.dat. Is this woody?

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




Reply to: