Re: Let's keep an eye on mktemp and build-essential

[Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>]

On 03.05.06 Florent Rougon (f.rougon@free.fr) wrote:

Hi,

> For Matthias:
> 
>   I think the mktemp package should be Essential, because the
>   mktemp binary was previously in an essential package:
>   debianutils. Didn't Clint Admas ask you to do that already?
> 
> mktemp recently moved from debianutils (Essential) to its own package,
> called mktemp.
> 
> The new mktemp package is not Essential (yet?), so this means that
> some teTeX packages should depend on mktemp, in theory. However, I
> suppose it is meant to be Essential and the reason it is not is
> because the mktemp package is quite new. But there is no open bug
> on build-essential about mktemp not being included in the
> 'essential-packages-list' file.
> 
> I suppose we should wait a little bit to see if these things
> eventually settle...
> 
mktemp has been made Essential, go relax again.

H.
-- 
You know you've been spending too much time on the computer when your
friend misdates a check, and you suggest adding a "++" to fix it.
  http://www.hilmar-preusse.de.vu/