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

Bug#545504: http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090905 incorrect?

On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 18:32 +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> According to this page
[texlive-* updated for the "five year old" bug]
> Looking at the changelog entries, I see however:
> texlive-base (2007.dfsg.2-1~lenny2) stable-proposed-updates; urgency=low
>   * add scrollmode to xelatex.ini (Closes: #534427)
> texlive-extra (2007.dfsg.17-1~lenny02) stable-proposed-updates; urgency=low
>   * add scrollmode to mllatex.ini
> texlive-lang (2007.dfsg.4-1+lenny1) stable-proposed-updates; urgency=low
>   * add \scrollmode to cslatex.ini (Closes: #534428)
> So the description appears to be correct for -bin, but (probably) not 
> for the others.

The rationale we were given for each of the scrollmode changes when they
were proposed for {old,}stable was that they did indeed fix problems
related to some of the content being >= five years old; indeed, the
original subjects of the two bugs quoted agree with that.

>From http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/07/msg00015.html ,
which refers to the corresponding oldstable updates:

<quote who="Frank Küster">
the previous upload of texlive-bin to oldstable has fixed the
5-year-old-LaTeX problem only for LaTeX itself, and for those formats
that load LaTeX and do it with the same configuration. 

Two formats, however, are missing \scrollmode in their ini file, which
means that the format generation engine will wait for input when it
encounters the LaTeX warning. With \scrollmode, the process will just
continue, and the format generation script has a chance to distinguish
between errors and (this case) warning.

I tried to make the description of the package in the proposed-updates
tracker (and thus the press release, as that is initially generated
based on the tracker) reflect the reason for the change rather than the
specific implementation detail, as the former seemed more relevant and
useful to users.



Reply to: