Re: [Gnewsense-dev] Another tex package (texlive-base) to hack

[Karl Goetz]

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:20:12 +0200
Sam Geeraerts <address@hidden> wrote:

> Karl Goetz schreef:
> >> Worst case scenario is that nothing has changed, so we'd have to
> >> remove the whole thing. It seems this would not only hurt TeX users
> >> badly, but might also break other stuff:
> >>
> >> "we do not know whether any of these files is used for
> >> building Debian packages"
> > 
> > We broke X badly, sometimes these things happen.
> 
> It's true that it's sometimes required. But I feel that we should
> think of a way to be more user friendly about this in the future. At

We can try.

> the very least we should have proper changelogs for our own packages.

Yes, this is work in progress.

> Better would be to warn about this with a notification and disable
> automatic removal of the package if needed. But that's probably

We can put up a news item on the website, and perhaps a news entry in
the package, but can't do much more then that.
As for holding back that package, that seems less technically easy (and
even less desirable).

> > Its also possible a number of the Debian packages are built against
> > ams because its available - they might be re-introduce-able by
> > rebuilding them.
> 
> It's weird that they don't know about these dependencies. Packages

Not sure what you mean here.

> have builddeps, don't they? Anyway, CTAN lists amslatex under
> required macros [1], so that smells like any dependency would be a
> major dependency. But I hope you're right.
> 
> [1] http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/required/amslatex/

Bugger, if its required its a pain.
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature