Bug#274276: Your Debian packages
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:41:07AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-14 00:12]: > > > * David A. van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-28 21:10]: > > > > I think that we could safely drop `dvidvi'---that should either be > > > > part of tetex, but its functionality is covered by pstricks and the > > > > like. > > > > Well, dvidvi is still needed by alml, so it cannot be removed without > > making that package instantly buggy. Removal request postponed for now > > pending reaction of the alml maintainer on whether alml could be changed > > to use something else (note, I didn't mail the alml maintainer, but do > > see #310201). > > Gaetano, you say in #310201 that "alml is not a unique dependance of > Appunti-di-informatica-libera. It is a DTD and can be used for any > kind of documentation. So it should not be removed." However, it > seems that alml is the only package which uses dvidvi which we'd like > to remove. How useful/important is alml and does it absolutely > require dvidvi? This package, dvidvi, is now orphaned for nearly a year, and nobody jumped up to maintain it. Gaetano, are you willing to maintain dvidvi? It needs some maintainer at least. Alternatively, we could remove it, but then alml really needs to be converted to using some alternative of dvidvi, of which quite a number exist. If nothing happens with this package, I think it might be best to remove it after all, and then I'll file a bug on alml requesting that it migrates to something else. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#274276: Your Debian packages
* Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-14 00:12]: > > * David A. van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-28 21:10]: > > > I think that we could safely drop `dvidvi'---that should either be > > > part of tetex, but its functionality is covered by pstricks and the > > > like. > > Well, dvidvi is still needed by alml, so it cannot be removed without > making that package instantly buggy. Removal request postponed for now > pending reaction of the alml maintainer on whether alml could be changed > to use something else (note, I didn't mail the alml maintainer, but do > see #310201). Gaetano, you say in #310201 that "alml is not a unique dependance of Appunti-di-informatica-libera. It is a DTD and can be used for any kind of documentation. So it should not be removed." However, it seems that alml is the only package which uses dvidvi which we'd like to remove. How useful/important is alml and does it absolutely require dvidvi? -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#274276: Your Debian packages
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 09:00:25PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > reassign 274276 ftp.debian.org > retitle 274276 RM: dvidvi > thanks > > * David A. van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-28 21:10]: > > I think that we could safely drop `dvidvi'---that should either be > > part of tetex, but its functionality is covered by pstricks and the > > like. Well, dvidvi is still needed by alml, so it cannot be removed without making that package instantly buggy. Removal request postponed for now pending reaction of the alml maintainer on whether alml could be changed to use something else (note, I didn't mail the alml maintainer, but do see #310201). --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
