Bug#251761: tetex-extra: caption.sty still missing despite license change

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> schrieb:

> On 31.05.04 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
>> Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> If 2.0.2 is going to become sarge's teTeX, we should have an
>> updated package. However, if we build a new orig.tar.gz anyway, we
>> can as well include the new, up-to-date caption package, instead of
>> caption2 which is newer than the caption.sty that is in upstream's
>> tar.gz.
>> 
> Well, if we're doing that, we could include the new LaTeX release....

It's our decisision which changes we consider appropriate for
backporting. IMO re-adding a newer version of a package, if we add it
anyway, is okay, while exchanging files closely associated with the
version number is not.

> I'm afraid we'll get bug reports about not building formats shortly
> after sarge-release, cause the 30 month will be over soon. :-(

Is this still true, i.e. will this still result in formats not building,
instead of only a warning? If this is the case, this would be a grave
bug. 

Hm, but I think it will build the formats. In latex.ltx (2.0.2 version)
I find:

\ifnum\count@>30
  \typeout{^^J%
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^^J%
!  You are attempting to make a LaTeX format from a source file^^J%
!  That is more than two years old.^^J%
!^^J%
!  If you enter <return> to scroll past this message then the format^^J%
!  will be built, but please consider obtaining newer source files^^J%
!  before continuing to build LaTeX.^^J%
!^^J%
!  LaTeX is re-issued every year in June.^^J%
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^^J%
}
   \errhelp{To avoid this error message, obtain new LaTeX sources.}
   \errmessage{LaTeX source files more than 1 year old!}
\fi

>> It might be a good idea to create and upload a new orig.tar.gz
>> before sarge is released. Not only to put caption.sty back in, but
>> also to remove some packages with bad licenses, that are not in our
>> binary packages, but still in the source package.
>> 
> I'm not sure, if this is really easy. You're the package maintainer
> and should know about this. IIRC it was rather hard to do.

I don't think there will be any problems. We don't use the original
tarballs, anyway, and can as well make new ones. Of course we have to
increase the upstream version number, but this is justifiable in this
case. 

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