Frank Küster wrote: > "Kevin B. McCarty" <kmccarty@Princeton.EDU> wrote: > >>fixes. Could you please test that version instead? I've done some >>tests to make sure that apt-get/aptitude do the right thing in various >>installation scenarios. If everything looks good to you and Norbert >>I'll upload it to ftp-master. > > Hm, I neither have time for testing, nor any experience with feynmf (or > much experience with texlive, for that matter), so I'm not the person to > test this. But I think if you can install it and run one of your > example files, the worst thing that can happen is that the package is > missing a Recommends. OK, after running a few more tests (with apt-get so it doesn't pull in Recommends), I'm just about certain the dependencies are right. I've gone ahead and uploaded the new feynmf package to Debian. >>Norbert Preining wrote: >> >>>Frank: If you want you can do an upload, just add >>> blacklist;tpm;feynmf;* >>>to the cfg file (if feynmf is the right tpm name). Then we have to add something like >>> recommends;texlive-metapost;feynmf (>= ???) >>>(version necessary???) and maybe something like >>> depends;texlive-full;feynmf >> >>If you want a versioned recommends from texlive-metapost, I guess it >>should be >= 1.08-3. > > I don't think this is needed or would do any good. You simply can't > fulfill older feynmf's dependencies with texlive, but texlive would have > worked with the old version, wouldn't it? So adding a version would > only make control files more complicated, and possible make apt(itude)s > resolver decisions harder upon upgrade. Yes, the older package would have worked with TeXLive if the dependencies had been satisfiable. So I suppose there is no need for a versioned recommends, as you say. Thanks for all your advice and patience, -- Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature