[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#829137: marked as done (texlive-base: texlive packages seem to upgrade way more than seems necessary)

Your message dated Sun, 3 Jul 2016 07:09:32 +0900
with message-id <20160702220932.GB24392@wienerschnitzel>
and subject line Re: Bug#829137: texlive-base: texlive packages seem to upgrade way more than seems necessary
has caused the Debian Bug report #829137,
regarding texlive-base: texlive packages seem to upgrade way more than seems necessary
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
829137: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829137
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: texlive-base
Version: 2016.20160523-1
Severity: normal

The texlive packages, based on the the texlive-base, texlive-extra,
texlive-lang, etc. source packages, seem to be rebuilt and upload way
more than is necessary.  Almost every time I do an upgrade there are
new version of the texlive packages.  This is kind of a pain in the
ass since these packages are all quite large, and their constant
updates cause significant extra time to my overall upgrade load.

I have no idea why the packages seem to be upgrade so frequently, but
I can't imagine that it's necessary for them to be upgrades as
frequently as they are.  The La/Tex upstream should be pretty damn
stable at this point.  I can't imagine there are many security patches
either.  Can someone explain why the packages are upgraded so
frequently, and if it's possible to throttle it back a bit?

Don't get me wrong: I am hugely appreciative that these packages
exist.  They are absolutely critical for me to do my work, and I
really appreciate all the work that the maintainers have put into it.
I just wonder if they can do themselves a favor my limiting new
uploads to every couple of months, rather than weekly.

jamie.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (700, 'stable'), (600, 'testing'), (200, 'unstable'), (101, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.5.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages texlive-base depends on:
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]  1.5.59
ii  libpaper-utils         1.1.24+nmu4
ii  tex-common             6.05
ii  texlive-binaries       2016.20160513.41080-3
ii  ucf                    3.0036
ii  xdg-utils              1.1.1-1

Versions of packages texlive-base recommends:
ii  lmodern  2.004.5-3

Versions of packages texlive-base suggests:
ii  evince [postscript-viewer]        3.20.0-4
ii  ghostscript [postscript-viewer]   9.19~dfsg-1+b1
ii  okular [postscript-viewer]        4:16.04.0-1
pn  perl-tk                           <none>
ii  zathura-pdf-poppler [pdf-viewer]  0.2.6-1

Versions of packages tex-common depends on:
ii  dpkg  1.18.7
ii  ucf   3.0036

Versions of packages tex-common suggests:
ii  debhelper  9.20160403

Versions of packages texlive-base is related to:
ii  tex-common        6.05
ii  texlive-binaries  2016.20160513.41080-3

-- debconf information:
  tex-common/check_texmf_missing:
  texlive-base/binary_chooser: pdftex, dvips, dvipdfmx, xdvi
  tex-common/check_texmf_wrong:
  texlive-base/texconfig_ignorant:

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi

> The texlive packages, based on the the texlive-base, texlive-extra,
> texlive-lang, etc. source packages, seem to be rebuilt and upload way
> more than is necessary.  Almost every time I do an upgrade there are

If you are concerned with this, please use Debian/stable.

These packages are changing content, with the changes of packages on 
CTAN.

> ass since these packages are all quite large, and their constant
> updates cause significant extra time to my overall upgrade load.

Then what about holding them (= key) so that they are not upgraded?

> frequently as they are.  The La/Tex upstream should be pretty damn
> stable at this point.  I can't imagine there are many security patches

We are talking about Debian/sid = unstable = devel, that has nothing
to do with security fixes.

Simple answer: Use Debian/stable if you do not want to be part of
the development process.

> I just wonder if they can do themselves a favor my limiting new
> uploads to every couple of months, rather than weekly.

Would you kindly consult the changelog of the Debian packages?
Then you would see that there is more or less one release 
per month. After the update to 2016 there were a few fixes
necessary in succession, but other than that we have a
one upload per month policy.

Closing this bug.

All the best

Norbert

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREINING, Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan                                 TeX Live & Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0  ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- End Message ---
Reply to: