Bug#200264: Splitting texdoctk? (was: Bug#200264: tetex-bin upgrade fails: conflict with texdoctk)
Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
>> > On 13.04.04 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
>
>> >> The alternative would be to swap over these files from tetex-extra
>> >> to tetex-bin (not -base, as originally suggested) when swapping the
>> >> dependencies.
[...]
> We can do the first step into that direction like I suggested in
> #190721. The patch there² moves a little bit further in direction of
> #223734 and #223728 than it is actually desired.
Oh, this is a little too much fiddling with pointers for me, I'm not
sure I get what you want to say. I'll try to say it with my words:
- The splitting as suggested in 223728 (standing for both twins) is not
desired, at least not currently, perhaps after sarge is released.
- Your patch in 190721 would fix our texdoctk problem
- You would prefer to not do so much splitting as this patch would give,
because of the same reasons that make the 223728-type splitting
undesirable.
Did I understand you correctly?
> If we split only the
> config-files off tetex-extra we shouldn't break anything.
And this is a suggestion as an alternative to your patch: We could
create texdoctk-conffiles but leave the rest in tetex-bin, which would
depend on texdoctk-conffiles and Conflict/Provide/Replace texdoctk,
right?
> After that we can swap over the mentioned Provide-fields, generate
> the necessary Conflict-fields, add at least a Recommend of perl-tk to
> tetex-bin and should try to upload the new tetex-base and tetex-bin
> simultaneously.
>
> Comments, Suggestions?
The last option (only texdoctk-conffiles) looks good for me to resolve
this bug for sarge. Have you checked whether the patches still can be
applied somehow?
Besides that, it seems to me that all this mess can only come because we
treat tetex-base and tetex-bin (or tetex-texmf and tetex-src, in TE's
terminology) as separate things, while Thomas is treating them as one
entity that is only packaged in two parts for practical reasons¹. You
may well forget this idea until after sarge, but: We are not using the
real orig.tar.gz's, anyway. Why not combine them into one
tetex_$version.orig.tar.gz and creating the same binary packages from
there?
Regards, Frank
¹Everybody who has once watched dpkg-buildpackage proceed in tetex-base
probably knows why: Unpacking one tar containing both parts, and
subsequently copying the files to their TEXMF destination would take
much longer (and uses more space) than just untarring in $TEXMF.
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: