On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:20:12 +0200 Sam Geeraerts <[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
