Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which makes me realise that dvidvi depends on tetex to the
exclusion of texlive... Pfff... I don't even know why it depends on
tetex-bin, to be honest.
That is probably because it needs to access fonts, and therefore
needs mktexpk and friends.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 09:21:30AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which makes me realise that dvidvi depends on tetex to the
exclusion of texlive... Pfff... I don't even know why it depends on
tetex-bin, to be honest.
I thus conclude that dvidvi (...)
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Frank!
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Frank Küster wrote:
I discovered this while working on the new upstream version. My machine
and my time constraints don't allow to work on two versions at the same
time. Therefore this will have to wait one or two
Hi all!
Quick note from the mountains:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:00:26 +0100 Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about merging them, pushing the changes in dvidvi to upstream
(that is texlive) and building a dvidvi binary package from texlive?
That sounds like a good idea, except
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all!
Quick note from the mountains:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:00:26 +0100 Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about merging them, pushing the changes in dvidvi to upstream
(that is texlive) and building a dvidvi binary package from
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 04:50:27PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:00:26 +0100 Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about merging them, pushing the changes in dvidvi to upstream
(that is texlive) and building a dvidvi binary package from texlive?
That sounds like
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:04:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ findpkg -r dvidvi
usr/bin/dvidvi
tex/dvidvi,tex/texlive-extra-utils
, http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt
| Packages must
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be acceptable. Another solution would be to have the
texlive source package build dvidvi into a separate binary package,
and to request removal of the dvidvi source package. What I'm
actually trying to do here is to sneakily shift
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: texlive-extra-utils
Version: 2005.dfsg.2-10, 2005.dfsg.2-11
Severity: serious
$ findpkg -r dvidvi
testing
[...]
usr/bin/dvidvi
tex/dvidvi,tex/texlive-extra-utils
[...]
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 04:50:27PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:00:26 +0100 Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about merging them, pushing the changes in dvidvi to upstream
(that is texlive) and building a dvidvi
Hi Frank!
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Frank Küster wrote:
I discovered this while working on the new upstream version. My machine
and my time constraints don't allow to work on two versions at the same
time. Therefore this will have to wait one or two days before it's
fixed (by excluding dvidvi
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 06:16:15PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if we don't have a separate package, then dvidvi is not
coinstallable with tetex. Surely we want to avoid that.
That's a valid point for etch, but not for lenny which won't have
Package: texlive-extra-utils
Version: 2005.dfsg.2-10, 2005.dfsg.2-11
Severity: serious
$ findpkg -r dvidvi
testing
[...]
usr/bin/dvidvi
tex/dvidvi,tex/texlive-extra-utils
[...]
usr/share/man/man1/dvidvi.1.gz
13 matches
Mail list logo
