Re: Bug#562318: collatinus: FTBFS: ! LaTeX Error: File `ucs.sty' not found.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 18:30:46 +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On So, 03 Jan 2010, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > It might have been a good idea to announce the change and explain the
> > possible impact before doing it, and maybe do an archive test build
>
> The packages have been in experimental for some time.
That's irrelevant...
>
> And no, we didn't do an archive test build, my laptop is to small for that
> and that is the *ONLY* developing machine for texlive.
I'm not suggesting doing that on your laptop. There have been archive
test builds for new gcc versions and countless other things in the past,
I asked for one before the last libx11 upload, etc. It's not more work
for you to ask for this, and it means you have an idea about the impact
of your changes on the rest of the archive, which means you and others
can be better prepared for the change when it happens.
> > before uploading the new packages then, instead of making an unknown
> > number of packages unbuildable without warning… Oh well, maybe next
> > time.
>
> I know that this is bad, but that is SID about. How many times
> *our* packages stopped with FTBFS due to some poppler switch I don't
> want to recount to you. That is life, and it is sid, so nothing to
> complain.
>
Yes, actually, something to complain. Your packages have a lot of
reverse build dependencies, which means you are responsible for
communicating with those package maintainers when planning disruptive
changes. Nothing new there, and because some other packages caused
disruption in the past doesn't mean you have to do the same.
> Why do you discuss this so laong if a simple
> sed -e s/texlive-latex-recommend/texlive-latex-extra/g
> on debian/control is enough?
>
Because while that's easy in one package, it means lots of work to get
the archive back to a buildable state if it affects many packages. And
because I'd like to make sure that things go as smoothly as possible
next time.
Cheers,
Julien
Reply to: