Frank Küster wrote: > Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yes, this would be considered, please upload to proposed-updates. > > I wrote "stable" as release, according to the developer's reference this > should end up in proposed-updates. You'll do that yourself, but here's > the source debdiff for convenience. The change in debian/rules is > autogenerated by the clean target and completely irrelevant.
Yes, using 'stable' or 'proposed-updates' is both fine. Please upload. Cheers Luk > diff -u tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/postrm.in > tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/postrm.in > --- tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/postrm.in > +++ tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/postrm.in > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ > #!/bin/sh -e > # > # postrm maintainer script for the Debian tetex-base package. > -# $Id: postrm.in 2087 2006-12-19 12:42:02Z frank $ > +# $Id: postrm.in 2878 2007-05-22 15:40:13Z frank $ > # > # don't try to understand this generated script as installed with the > package. > # instead, look at the source files in the source package > @@ -14,11 +14,8 @@ > BASE_UCF_FILES="/etc/texdoctk/texdocrc" > DPKG_EXT="<:=$PURGE_EXTENSIONS:>" > > -UNUSED_CONFFILES="<:=$UNUSED_CONFFILES_BASE:>" > PREINST_MOVE_EXT=<:=$PREINST_MOVE_EXT:> > -FORMER_UCF="<:=$BASE_UCF:>" > > -UNUSED_CONFDIRS="<:=$UNUSED_CONFDIRS_BASE:>" > > ## Variables needed for upgrading > generated="download35.map builtin35.map psfonts_t1.map psfonts_pk.map \ > @@ -70,13 +67,6 @@ > for oldconffile in /etc/texmf/pdftex/pdftex.cfg > /etc/texmf/updmap.d/10tetex-base.cfg /etc/X11/app-defaults/XDvi; do > remove_with_backups $oldconffile > done > - for oldconffile in $UNUSED_CONFFILES $FORMER_UCF; do > - newname=`get_newfilename $oldconffile` > - remove_with_backups /etc/texmf/$newname > - done > - for oldconfdir in $UNUSED_CONFDIRS; do > - rmdir /etc/texmf/$oldconfdir 2>/dev/null || true > - done > > ucf_purge $BASE_UCF_FILES > ;; > diff -u tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/rules tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/rules > --- tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/rules > +++ tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/rules > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > #!/usr/bin/make -f > # > # do not edit this file, instead edit rules.in! > -# $Id: rules.in 2034 2006-12-11 07:19:37Z frank $ > +# $Id: rules 2087 2006-12-19 12:42:02Z frank $ > > # The debian/rules(.in) file was nearly completely rewritten by > # Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] in 2004, with patches by > @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ > done > > # needs devscripts in etch or from backports.org > - debchange --distribution sarge-backports -b --newversion > 3.0.dfsg.3-5~bpo.1 "Recompiled for sarge." > + debchange --distribution sarge-backports -b --newversion > 3.0.dfsg.3-4~1~bpo.1 "Recompiled for sarge." > debchange --append "No source changes." > > # need to remake rules > diff -u tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/changelog > tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/changelog > --- tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/changelog > +++ tetex-base-3.0.dfsg.3/debian/changelog > @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ > +tetex-base (3.0.dfsg.3-5etch1) stable; urgency=low > + > + * The postrm script does no longer remove lots of supposedly obsolete > + files upon purge. These files are now again needed for texlive > + (closes: #420390) > + * Upload to stable-proposed-updates > + > + -- Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 22 May 2007 17:40:52 +0200 > + > tetex-base (3.0.dfsg.3-5) unstable; urgency=low > > * Fix a syntax error in the code that removes the obsolete conffile of > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
