Re: Bug#253098: fix to jadetex based on tetex changes
To all --
I apologize for stirring up this problem with my patches to jadetex.
The only thing I'm not sorry about is getting this conversation
started, since the problem clearly needs to be resolved. :-)
One mistake I definitely made was to not read the bug report carefully
enough. In the fervor of trying to clear up issues that were
impacting the tiff transition, I fell into the dangerous trap of
moving too quickly. Luckily, there are enough checks and balances in
place that someone else could quickly correct my mistake. Adam,
thanks for doing that!
That aside, there's been a lot of discussion, but I'm not sure there's
a resolution. Here's my understanding of the points:
* The decision to switch LaTeX to use etex instead of tex was made
deliberately.
* Not everyone agrees about whether this fix was appropriate so close
to the release.
* The tetex maintainers acknowledge that this fix caused an
incompatibility that broke other packages. This must be addressed
in some way regardless of whether the other packages are behaving
in the way the tetex maintainers would like them to.
It also seems clear to me that there is a discussion going on between
tetex and jadetex maintainers that should hopefully converge on some
solution that means jadetex and tetex installs and upgrades all
succeed.
As the pot stirrer, I don't think I have a further role in this except
that I will post a separate RC bug documenting the pbuilder
installation failure (as requested by Adam). Unless I hear otherwise,
I'll back out, having confidence that the right thing will happen with
a proper bug report and the knowledge that these RC bugs must be
cleared for the packages to move into sarge.
Thanks again, and sorry for creating any unnecessary confusion by
making incorrect fixes or posting things to the wrong place.
--
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/
Reply to: