Re: tetex-base needs a new orig.tar.gz

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> schrieb:

> frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster) wrote:
>
>> Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>>> So, this is what we want to do:
>>>
>>> 1. Remove non-free files from the orig.tar.gz (this is a must!)
>>>
>>
>> Ad 1)
>>
> [...]
>> - #139900: Contains non-free hyphenation files and
>>   #219294, #247046: Please include (now free) cahyph.tex
>
> There's one more: ukhyphen.tex, which is also removed from
> tetex-beta. There's no permission to distribute derivative works. 

We should also change tetex-bin and add the new files to the debconf
choices. But this one requires a change, because the postinst (fmtutil)
will fail if ukhyphen is enabled, but not found.

I noticed that the dependencies between tetex-bin and tetex-base are
awkward:

tetex-bin: Conflicts: tetex-base (<< 2.0.2-6)
           Depends: tetex-base (>> 2.0.2-5.1)

tetex-base: Conflicts: tetex-bin (<= 2.0.2-3)

I think for tetex-bin it would be sufficient to have the Conflicts
versioned, and the Depends without a version. Alternatively, we should
rather use Conflicts: tetex-base (<< $version) together with Depends:
tetex-base (>= $version), because it's easier to understand. But are
there any reasons why we can't simply use an unversioned depends? It
won't be unpacked with the old tetex-base being installed, and it won't
be configured without any tetex-base installed - and here any results in
"recent enough". Comments?

As for the new problem, we cannot put the information into tetex-bin,
because then one could install the new tetex-base and keep the old
tetex-bin, which would then fail upon dpkg-reconfigure. Therefore, we
have to increase the versioned conflicts:

tetex-base: Conflicts: tetex-bin (<= 2.0.2-15)

Regards, Frank

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