Bug#470118: tetex-base: Transitional package that should depend and/or recommend tex-foo.
Andrew Vaughan <ajv-lists@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> In Etch tetex-base recommends tetex-doc which recommends tetex-bin. Since
> aptitude defaults to installing recommends, "aptitude install tetex-base"
> installs tetex-base, tetex-doc, tetex-bin and tex-common, with the last
> three being marked as auto-installed.
You've got a point, but the result of the argument is just that it is a
bug that tetex-base recommends tetex-doc.
> [Sidenote: Looking at why tetex-doc is listed separately, I found another
> bug. Etch has tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5etch1 which is a higher version than
> Lenny (tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5). tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5 is built from
> tetex-base source package. Unless someone says otherwise, expect a bug
> report in 24 hrs].
Where's the bug? Anyway, it's completely useless to file it, since the
only action we're going to take on tetex-base and tetex-doc is to file a
"RM: [RoM]" bug against ftp.debian.og.
> Well if you're going to ship a transitional tetex-base package, it should
> attempt to provide equivalent functionality for people upgrading from Etch.
We do not plan that, unless we are forced to by our small manpower.
> Most of the depends and recommends already have alternative dependencies.
Which means that it's trivial to fix them.
> Are there any reasons not to keep tetex-base as a transition package
> depending on either texlive or texlive-base for Lenny, then drop it for
> Lenny+1?
Yes, it doesn't make sense in my view.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: