Bug#470118: tetex-base: Transitional package that should depend and/or recommend tex-foo.
On 09.03.08 Andrew Vaughan (ajv-li...@netspace.net.au) wrote: Hi Andrew, > Package: tetex-base > Version: 2007-13 > Severity: serious > > Hi > > >From the description > > teTeX is no longer developed upstream, and has been replaced by > the TeX Live collection. This is a transitional package to bring > former teTeX users a decent selection of TeX Live packages. It > can be safely removed (unless some external packages still depend > on tetex-base). > > However the package does not depend or recommend any packages, and > so doesn't provide "a decent selection of TeX Live packages." > Is this bug still relevant? tetex-base is now a transitional package even in Debian stable and I guess we'll remove it after the next release. I don't think it is worth to discuss the package description of a package which will be removed. H. -- sigmentation fault -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#470118: tetex-base: Transitional package that should depend and/or recommend tex-foo.
On 10.03.08 Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Andrew Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > > [Sidenote: Looking at why tetex-doc is listed separately, I found > > another bug. Etch has tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5etch1 which is a > > higher version than Lenny (tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5). > > tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5 is built from tetex-base source package. > > Unless someone says otherwise, expect a bug report in 24 hrs]. > > Where's the bug? Anyway, it's completely useless to file it, since > the only action we're going to take on tetex-base and tetex-doc is > to file a "RM: [RoM]" bug against ftp.debian.og. > IIRC tetex-doc *has* been removed from unstable. The last task in my list is to check if the bugs sitting on tetex-doc still apply to the docs of TeX Live and to either close or re-assign them. H. -- sigmentation fault
Bug#470118: tetex-base: Transitional package that should depend and/or recommend tex-foo.
Andrew Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In Etch tetex-base recommends tetex-doc which recommends tetex-bin. Since > aptitude defaults to installing recommends, "aptitude install tetex-base" > installs tetex-base, tetex-doc, tetex-bin and tex-common, with the last > three being marked as auto-installed. You've got a point, but the result of the argument is just that it is a bug that tetex-base recommends tetex-doc. > [Sidenote: Looking at why tetex-doc is listed separately, I found another > bug. Etch has tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5etch1 which is a higher version than > Lenny (tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5). tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5 is built from > tetex-base source package. Unless someone says otherwise, expect a bug > report in 24 hrs]. Where's the bug? Anyway, it's completely useless to file it, since the only action we're going to take on tetex-base and tetex-doc is to file a "RM: [RoM]" bug against ftp.debian.og. > Well if you're going to ship a transitional tetex-base package, it should > attempt to provide equivalent functionality for people upgrading from Etch. We do not plan that, unless we are forced to by our small manpower. > Most of the depends and recommends already have alternative dependencies. Which means that it's trivial to fix them. > Are there any reasons not to keep tetex-base as a transition package > depending on either texlive or texlive-base for Lenny, then drop it for > Lenny+1? Yes, it doesn't make sense in my view. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Bug#470118: tetex-base: Transitional package that should depend and/or recommend tex-foo.
On Sunday 09 March 2008 21:53, Ralf Stubner wrote: > > I am not sure if this is really a bug, let alone a serious one. Let me > try to explain this: The dependencies for the teTeX packages where > such that tetex-base formed the basis of everything, but it did not > provide any useful functinality without tetex-bin installed, which > depended on tetex-base. So in the teTeX world in order to have, e.g., > a functional 'latex' command, you would have to install tetex-bin > which would then draw in tetex-base. In the TeX Live world, these > depencies have been reversed. Now texlive-base-bin is the basis and > different macro packages depend on that. Hence, if you want a > functional 'latex' command, you have to install texlive-latex-base > which draws in texlive-base-bin. In Etch tetex-base recommends tetex-doc which recommends tetex-bin. Since aptitude defaults to installing recommends, "aptitude install tetex-base" installs tetex-base, tetex-doc, tetex-bin and tex-common, with the last three being marked as auto-installed. (I don't know enough to say whether this plus some fonts is enough to provide basic functionality). When trying to aptitude dist-upgrade to Lenny you get The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED: ... tetex-bin tex-common ... The following NEW packages will be automatically installed: ... The following packages will be automatically REMOVED: tetex-doc The following NEW packages will be installed: ... The following packages will be REMOVED: tetex-doc The following packages will be upgraded: ... tetex-base ... ie tetex-base is upgraded, but with nothing else depending on them/recommending them tetex-bin tex-common and tetex-doc get removed. [Sidenote: Looking at why tetex-doc is listed separately, I found another bug. Etch has tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5etch1 which is a higher version than Lenny (tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5). tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5 is built from tetex-base source package. Unless someone says otherwise, expect a bug report in 24 hrs]. > > So every TeX user had to have tetex-bin installed, and every package > that depended on a working TeX system had to depend on tetex-bin. Now > the transitional tetex-bin package does have the required dependencies > to ensure that a working TeX system is provided. The transitional > tetex-base package is just a technical necessity. > Well if you're going to ship a transitional tetex-base package, it should attempt to provide equivalent functionality for people upgrading from Etch. On Sunday 09 March 2008 21:44, Frank Küster wrote: > However, there were quite a lot of buggy packages which depended on > tetex-base and became uninstallable at once. In order to lower the > severity of those bugs from serious (uninstallable) to important only > (depends on an empty package bound for removal) we introduced the > package again. > > The description was just taken over from tetex-bin/extra and is indeed > misleading. I haven't checked lately, but maybe we can now remove the > tetex-base package again altogether. > If you're going to remove the tetex-base for Lenny, then you should probably do so soon, to provide time for people to fix the bugs. $ cat *packages |grep tetex-base | grep "^Depends: " |wc -l 10 $ cat *packages |grep tetex-base | grep "^Recommends: " |wc -l 7 $ cat *packages |grep tetex-base | grep "^Suggests: " |wc -l 9 $ cat *sources |grep tetex-base | grep "^Build-Depends" |wc -l 6 Most of the depends and recommends already have alternative dependencies. Binary-i386 packages with problematic depends/recommends: rmligs-german, fweb, opustex, revtex, tth Source packages with build-deps on tetex-base: sgb, acl2, cxref, ess, magnus, sbm Note that simulating dropping the tetex-base package results in the removal of tetex-bin tex-common and tetex-doc in the scenario from the top of this email. (The new tetex-bin depends on texlive-common which conflicts with tetex-base < 2007-11). Are there any reasons not to keep tetex-base as a transition package depending on either texlive or texlive-base for Lenny, then drop it for Lenny+1? Cheers Andrew V.
Bug#470118: tetex-base: Transitional package that should depend and/or recommend tex-foo.
Hi Andrew, On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 19:45 +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote: > Package: tetex-base > Version: 2007-13 > Severity: serious > > Hi > > >From the description > > teTeX is no longer developed upstream, and has been replaced by the TeX > Live collection. This is a transitional package to bring former teTeX > users a decent selection of TeX Live packages. It can be safely removed > (unless some external packages still depend on tetex-base). > > However the package does not depend or recommend any packages, and so > doesn't provide "a decent selection of TeX Live packages." I am not sure if this is really a bug, let alone a serious one. Let me try to explain this: The dependencies for the teTeX packages where such that tetex-base formed the basis of everything, but it did not provide any useful functinality without tetex-bin installed, which depended on tetex-base. So in the teTeX world in order to have, e.g., a functional 'latex' command, you would have to install tetex-bin which would then draw in tetex-base. In the TeX Live world, these depencies have been reversed. Now texlive-base-bin is the basis and different macro packages depend on that. Hence, if you want a functional 'latex' command, you have to install texlive-latex-base which draws in texlive-base-bin. So every TeX user had to have tetex-bin installed, and every package that depended on a working TeX system had to depend on tetex-bin. Now the transitional tetex-bin package does have the required dependencies to ensure that a working TeX system is provided. The transitional tetex-base package is just a technical necessity. Do you (or somebody else) have any suggestion how to improve the wording of the description? Otherwise I would suggest to close this bug. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470118: tetex-base: Transitional package that should depend and/or recommend tex-foo.
severity 470118 minor retitle 470118 tetex-base: misleading description thanks Andrew Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>From the description > > teTeX is no longer developed upstream, and has been replaced by the TeX > Live collection. This is a transitional package to bring former teTeX > users a decent selection of TeX Live packages. It can be safely removed > (unless some external packages still depend on tetex-base). > > However the package does not depend or recommend any packages, and so > doesn't provide "a decent selection of TeX Live packages." This is on purpose. tetex-base never provided any reliable functionality, at least not for any purpose actually used in Debian. Therefore it is and it was a bug to depend on tetex-base, anyway, and we dropped the package completely with the transition to texlive only. However, there were quite a lot of buggy packages which depended on tetex-base and became uninstallable at once. In order to lower the severity of those bugs from serious (uninstallable) to important only (depends on an empty package bound for removal) we introduced the package again. The description was just taken over from tetex-bin/extra and is indeed misleading. I haven't checked lately, but maybe we can now remove the tetex-base package again altogether. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Bug#470118: tetex-base: Transitional package that should depend and/or recommend tex-foo.
Package: tetex-base Version: 2007-13 Severity: serious Hi >From the description teTeX is no longer developed upstream, and has been replaced by the TeX Live collection. This is a transitional package to bring former teTeX users a decent selection of TeX Live packages. It can be safely removed (unless some external packages still depend on tetex-base). However the package does not depend or recommend any packages, and so doesn't provide "a decent selection of TeX Live packages." Thanks for you work in Debian. Andrew V. -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-486 Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
