Bug#190721: marked as done (tetex needs better splitting)
Your message dated Wed, 5 May 2004 18:39:55 +0200
with message-id <20040505163955.GA10202@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
and subject line Bug#190721: splitting of texdoctk is hosed
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; 25 Apr 2003 10:11:12 +0000
>From uzs33d@uni-bonn.de Fri Apr 25 05:11:11 2003
Return-path: <uzs33d@uni-bonn.de>
Received: from mail.stw-bonn.de [131.220.99.37]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 1990Af-000107-00; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:11:10 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.stw-bonn.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D5A632CE
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:10:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-bonn.de (port-192-168-82-198.dhcp.stw-bonn.de [192.168.82.198])
by mail.stw-bonn.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281F8627DF
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:10:38 +0000 (/etc/localtime)
Message-ID: <3EA9099E.1070601@uni-bonn.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:10:38 +0200
From: Josh Buhl <uzs33d@uni-bonn.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030327 Debian/1.3-4
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: splitting of texdoctk is hosed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.3 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA
autolearn=ham version=2.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 2.0.2-3
Severity: normal
Bug # 189341 should *not* be wishlist. texdoctk is *broken* if
tetex-extra is not installed. Isn't that a policy violation?
It totally defeats the purpose of splitting off tetex-extra to save
space if you have to install the whole 39 MB anyway, just to get the
conf file for texdoctk.
Why can't the files /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc and
/etc/texdoctk/texdoctk.dat be put in tetex-base?
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 190721-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 May 2004 16:44:03 +0000
>From hille42@web.de Wed May 05 09:44:03 2004
Return-path: <hille42@web.de>
Received: from smtp08.web.de (smtp.web.de) [217.72.192.226]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BLPV5-0001QW-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:44:03 -0700
Received: from [80.184.44.18] (helo=preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de)
by smtp.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.101 #91)
id 1BLPUY-0005Cd-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 18:43:32 +0200
Received: by preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 566BEB213; Wed, 5 May 2004 18:39:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 18:39:55 +0200
From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
To: Josh Buhl <uzs33d@uni-bonn.de>, 190721-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#190721: splitting of texdoctk is hosed
Message-ID: <20040505163955.GA10202@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
References: <3EA9099E.1070601@uni-bonn.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <3EA9099E.1070601@uni-bonn.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Organization: Hilmar Preusse Inc.
X-Uptime: 18:27:37 up 9:00, 5 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.26 i686
X-www.distributed.net: OGR: 1 packet (115.05 stats units) [2.87 Mnodes/s]
X-Confirmation-Request: yes
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Hilmar Preusse" <hille42@web.de>
Sender: hille42@web.de
Delivered-To: 190721-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,
HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1
On 25.04.03 Josh Buhl (uzs33d@uni-bonn.de) wrote:
Hi Josh,
This bug is now a year old (Happy birthday!), time to close it.
> Bug # 189341 should *not* be wishlist. texdoctk is *broken* if
> tetex-extra is not installed. Isn't that a policy violation?
>
between -6 and -7 we moved these files you're talking about to
tetex-base. So texdoctk should work without having tetex-extra
installed.
tetex-base (2.0.2-7) unstable; urgency=medium
* Moved files for texdoctk from tetex-extra to tetex-base, let
tetex-base declare "Replaces: texdoctk". tetex-bin now depends on
these files to provide texdoctk's functionality (see: #200264) [frank]
-- Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:59:37 +0200
> It totally defeats the purpose of splitting off tetex-extra to save
> space if you have to install the whole 39 MB anyway, just to get
> the conf file for texdoctk.
>
> Why can't the files /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc and
> /etc/texdoctk/texdoctk.dat be put in tetex-base?
>
We did.
Further in this bug we discussed about further splitting of these
packages. This will be a post-sarge issue. There already 2 other
wishlist-bugs open about that (#223728 and #223734).
So I think we can close that one here.
Regards,
Hilmar
--
sigmentation fault
Reply to: