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 the very
least we should have proper changelogs for our own packages. Better
would be to warn about this with a notification and disable automatic
removal of the package if needed. But that's probably something for a
next major release. Too bad other distros don't deliberately break
things or we could have just copied what they do.</offtopic>
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 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/
_______________________________________________
gNewSense-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
