Re: How to handle filename conflict "aleph" (Packages aleph, tetex-bin, texlive-bin)?
- To: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>
- Cc: debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org, 325551@bugs.debian.org, 389163@bugs.debian.org, 379564@bugs.debian.org, paul-debian@home.paulcager.org
- Subject: Re: How to handle filename conflict "aleph" (Packages aleph, tetex-bin, texlive-bin)?
- From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:50:15 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20061212205015.GX2733@mails.so.argh.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>, debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org, 325551@bugs.debian.org, 389163@bugs.debian.org, 379564@bugs.debian.org, paul-debian@home.paulcager.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 86u0003lz6.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
- References: <[🔎] 86u0003lz6.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
* Frank Küster (frank@kuesterei.ch) [061212 21:36]:
> The right solution to this would be to package the "new upstream version"
> of aleph, which changes the name to afnix. However, the aleph package
> has been orphaned (#374120), and the ITP afnix has not yet yielded a
> package. I wouldn't want to rely on that for etch (although this is the
> first time I contact Paul about this, so I might be wrong).
>
> If there'll be no afnix package in etch, the only other solution to this
> problem seems to be to remove aleph from testing - any NMUing won't make
> sense without doing the actual work of packaging afnix.
>
> To me it seems as if the current situation is better than having no
> aleph/afnix at all. However, it violates the release policy.
>
> What should we do?
Why is it better than to drop aleph? If a package is way outdated, and
RC buggy, and also aleph is practically unchanged since Sarge, I think
that is still grounds for a removal.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: