[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Upload of new texlive packages


Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:

> Great that you took a look ...

All other active DDs here are on holiday (except Atsuhito, AFAIK)...

> Ok, or simple sh ..., I guess I have to check all of them for dash
> compatibility though.

Yes. Otherwise, using bash at build-time is IMO really not a problem.
Embedded systems, where people don't want bash installed in order to
save space, are not used to build packages...

The point is: be consistent.

  sh bla.sh


  bash bla.bash

but not a mix of sh and bash.

>>         cp -a build/inst/bin/*/* bin/i386-linux/
>>         cp -a bin.special/* bin/i386-linux/


> So rest assured, this has been present since some time and binaries were
> created for all Debian archs.

Please add a comment in the rules file for next time, so that we know
this is safe (even if a hack).

>>   - shouldn't the executable-not-elf-or-script overrides in
>>     texlive-pdfetex.override be fixed by inserting a real
>>     "#! /usr/bin/perl ..." shebang line instead of using the override,
>>     as I noted you did somewhere else (in some dpatches)?
> I tried. But it does not work.

OK, I thought it was easy to fix, and just an inconsistency in your

> You are invited to fix this magic header for me:
> eval '(exit $?0)' && eval 'exec perl -S $0 ${1+"$@"}' && eval 'exec perl -S $0 $
> argv:q'
>   if 0;
> use strict;
> $^W=1; # turn warning on
> #

Haha. I'm rather averting my eyes and running away!

> So I guess the only thing is the POSIX/dash compatibility and recode.
> Can I put this on the list for next time, or should I rebuild packages?

I think the POSIX/dash problem won't affect the packages generated by
the buildds, even if they have sh -> dash (I would be surprised if this
was the case, though...). If you also think so, I'd say it's OK for this

As for the recode thing, it is not a bug. I think using recode is more
elegant, but otherwise it's OK.


Reply to: