Re: Upload of new texlive packages

[Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>]

Hi,

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

or

  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
packaging.

> 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
time.

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

-- 
Florent