Re: Release Goal Proposal: texlive-transition
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:32:58PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > While I think this is a useful case for mass-bugfiling, and that any NMUers
> > of the affected packages should consider fixing these issues /when an NMU is
> > already needed/, it's my impression that the alternative dependency is of
> > only superficial importance. I don't see any benefit to the quality of
> > lenny for the release team to sanction this as an official "release goal"
> > with sanctioned 0-day NMUs.
> I disagree.
> - tetex-bin and tetex-extra do still exist, as metapackages, and we
> would like to have the freedom to change their dependencies as we
> learn about users' needs, without bothering whether some package is
> broken by this.
Which precisely implies that the functionality provided by
tetex-bin/tetex-extra from one release to the next is not reliable; that
sounds like a net decrease in quality to me...
> - It would be nice if tetex-doc, and therefore the complete tetex-base
> source package, could be removed.
Sure, lots of things would be nice to do that shouldn't necessarily be done
by means of 0-day NMUs.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.