Bug#251761: tetex-extra: caption.sty still missing despite license change
On 02.06.04 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
> Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> schrieb:
> > On 31.05.04 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) 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 decision 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 forgot the smiley. Sorry! Is the version number of teTeX bound to
the LaTeX release? We manipulate dvips, epstopdf etc. to fix bugs..
OK, I have to admit putting in another LaTeX release is a rather huge
invasion.
> 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%
<snip>
> }
> \errhelp{To avoid this error message, obtain new LaTeX sources.}
> \errmessage{LaTeX source files more than 1 year old!}
> \fi
>
This is an error message. I guess, the LaTeX run will stop and the
postinst-script will exit with non-zero. At least I remember about a
few bug reports to the DBTS cause of LaTeX being to old. I don't have
my UML any more, where I can adjust the system time to check that
out.
> > 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
> tar balls, 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.
>
AFAICS the tar-ball of XFree 4.3.0 was lately re-released for exactly
the same reasons. So we could think about it. Does anybody has a list
of the files, we should remove and these we should add?
H.
--
sigmentation fault
Reply to: