Re: lenny release goals and the tetex->texlive transition
Hi all!
On Die, 12 Dez 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> all: Make sure that all packages work with texlive. And actually it
> wouldn't hurt to get some of those fixes into etch...
Yup. This probably means doing some NMU, as there are packages with bugs
open since some time and no reaction, although there have been new
versions on a regular basis (ipe, I even prepared a new source package,
texmacs, ..)
> I am wondering whether we^I should start a mass bug filing on packages
> that are missing a texlive alternative dependency
I think there is no need. Did you check how many packages there are
which don't have a bug report by now? Do you have a list?
> ***** Enforce the TeX Policy in add-on packages *****
> We should drop the TDS compatibility hack from tex-common ASAP.
Yes.
> What else needs to be done? Should we somehow check all packages that do not
> use dh_installtex (Build-Depend on tex-common) whether they comply?
Not our job I would say.
> ***** Transition from teTeX to TeXlive *****
> This can be divided into a couple of sub-issues:
> * Build libkpathsea4 from either TeXlive, or a separate pacakge
This is an interesting question. I have NEVER checked whether it would
be possible to build libkpathsea dyn version from the TeX Live sources.
And to be honest, I am feeling myself not very able to to check for this
in the hell of configure/auto*/MAkefile.in hell.
Separate package maybe is a good idea.
> * Make sure that no package Depends on teTeX alone
See above.
> * Make sure that TeXlive is always the primary choice
This needs a long way to go, as many packages already have alternative
deps on texlive, but as second option.
> * Make sure that no package Build-Depends on teTeX alone
Umpf. Nothing done on this front.
> There are a couple of possible schemes and timelines to achieve this:
I opt for this:
> 2. Make the teTeX packages transitional packages, see what happens and deal
> with the (much smaller) mess
See comments to Ralfs answer.
> ***** Completely clean up license situation *****
> This involves checking all packages, the infrastructure is in tpm2licenses.pl.
> Hopefully, Rogério and his students will help here.
Hahaha... "Completely" I am not even DREAMING of this. But in fact what
I did before leaving was something more desperate: Getting AUTOMATIC
update checking from CTAN to the TL svn repository working: This looks
like:
- Check for update available
- check whether current default routine works
. if not adapt it, if yes be happy
- check the license
- add it to the autocheck list
There is a nice document written on this, if someone (the students!?!?!)
want to get their hand on:
- perl programming
- license checking
- subversion usage
this is the *perfect* option, as all of this is needed.
> * Document the packaging better, so that the unititiated are able to build
> a package from SVN.
Hmm, of course it needs better description, but I think the README
already describes quite good how to make a source package.
> * Package TeXlive 2006, at least.
I will start with this as soon 2006 (or 2006/07) is released ...
> * Decide whether TeXlive continues to work with conffile links and a
> separate /etc/texmf/texlive, or switch to the teTeX scheme, and implement
I don't understand?
On Mit, 13 Dez 2006, Ralf Stubner wrote:
> Just a quick question: A transitional package would be one that is
> basically empty but depends on a suitable set of texlive-* packages,
> right? Then the question arises whether these packages are mainly meant
> for transition of the users, or if it would still be ok to use them as
> (build-)dependency.
>
> I could imagine sort of a mixture of 1. and 2.: make tetex-* packages
> depend on 'texlive'. These transitional packages would be used to update
> the users and to aid the transition, but using them as (build-)
> dependency would be a bug.
>
> * sensible for users who do the etch->lenny update; they want a TeX
> system, they get one; somehow the users should be informed that they
> might have to select additional packages
True. for users this is a sensible option.
> * will probably work for many packages that (build-)depend on tetex
> => smaller set of packages to select from for the 'real' (build-)
> dependencies
Also true, but build-deps should still be fixed since we want to remove
the tetex packages...
> * there will be some mess with (build-)dependencies where 'texlive' is
> not enough; I hope it is closer to 2. than to 1., but of course I am
> not sure
I still hope that this will not be too bad.
As I said, I vote for the transitional packages, and that move should be
done immediately after etch released.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Università di Siena
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTSPUR (n.)
The fourth wheel of a supermarket trolley which looks identical to the
other tree but renders the trolley completely uncontrollable.
MO I RANA Imagine being on a vacation, and it's raining all the time,
you are driving and the kids are making you a nervous wreck. Well you
are definitive in Mo i Rana.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Reply to: