Dear Tex maintainers, I appreciate your work but seriosly, the activities around pdfjam integration do not deserve much credit. What I mean? It would be really nice (actually: polite) to discuss with the maintainer of an external package BEFORE absorbing his baby and before declaring it obsolete. It's not like I have strong objections... feel free to continue on that. But do that correctly! - document its inclusion in your changelog - document the original source in your copyright - send a formal removal request, you can declare it RoM (confirmed by maintainer) Regards, Eduard. > Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 10:34:23 +0200 > From: Hilmar Preuße <hille42@web.de> > To: Pierre Joyot <p.joyot@estia.fr>, 669113-done@bugs.debian.org > Subject: Re: Bug#669113: pdfjam: pkg instalation what to remove texmacs, > texlive-full, ... > > On 17.04.12 Pierre Joyot (p.joyot@estia.fr) wrote: > > > Package: pdfjam > > Version: 2.05-2 > > Severity: important > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > To install the pdfjam pkg it is necessary to remove > > feynmf > > fragmaster > > texlive-extra-utils > > texlive-full > > texmacs > > > > I think it's a problem related to the new texlive 2011 version > > > The functionality provided by pdfjam is now provided by > texlive-extra-utils. We think about removing pdfjam (see #666067). > > H. > -- > sigmentation fault > -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature