On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:32:58PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While I think this is a useful case for mass-bugfiling, and that any NMUers > > of the affected packages should consider fixing these issues /when an NMU is > > already needed/, it's my impression that the alternative dependency is of > > only superficial importance. I don't see any benefit to the quality of > > lenny for the release team to sanction this as an official "release goal" > > with sanctioned 0-day NMUs. > I disagree. > - tetex-bin and tetex-extra do still exist, as metapackages, and we > would like to have the freedom to change their dependencies as we > learn about users' needs, without bothering whether some package is > broken by this. Which precisely implies that the functionality provided by tetex-bin/tetex-extra from one release to the next is not reliable; that sounds like a net decrease in quality to me... > - It would be nice if tetex-doc, and therefore the complete tetex-base > source package, could be removed. Sure, lots of things would be nice to do that shouldn't necessarily be done by means of 0-day NMUs. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
