On 04/09/13 at 12:13 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Ben Hutchings wrote:
How much do those packages weigh, Norbert? Are TeX transitional
packages particularly heavy?
In kg? In bit? In work time?
I really don't know why you think TeX is exempt from the usual
On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
requirements to support clean upgrades between Debian releases.
- texlive-lang-danish gets removed (as well as texlive-common
and texlive-doc-base), but texlive-lang-european doesn't get
installed.
Yes, and? Was the dist-upgrade disturbed?
We
[Norbert Preining]
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Peter Samuelson wrote:
texlive-lang-european? It doesn't look like it to me (no Breaks or
Conflicts), but I haven't actually tried it.
conflicts there are, texlive-base conflicts with all the old packages.
I misspoke. There is a Conflicts in
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 12:55:46PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Norbert Preining]
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Peter Samuelson wrote:
texlive-lang-european? It doesn't look like it to me (no Breaks or
Conflicts), but I haven't actually tried it.
conflicts there are, texlive-base conflicts
Hi David,
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, David Prévot wrote:
I was directly proposing that, instead of silently removing the
texlive-lang-danish — and at least texlive-lang-norwegian — binary
packages, they could be added back as dummy transitional packages
I understood your proposal, of course. Still,
[Norbert Preining]
I understood your proposal, of course. Still, since there are no rdepends
besides very few (1?) build-depends on these two packages, I consider
it a a waste of resources.
Sounds like you are saying 'texlive-lang-danish' is only useful as a
package dependency - in other
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Sounds like you are saying 'texlive-lang-danish' is only useful as a
package dependency - in other words, users would never install it
explicitly because they want its functionality. Is that correct? This
I never said that. The functionality is now
Sounds like you are saying 'texlive-lang-danish' is only useful as a
package dependency - in other words, users would never install it
explicitly because they want its functionality. Is that correct? This
[Norbert Preining]
I never said that. The functionality is now in
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Peter Samuelson wrote:
texlive-lang-european? It doesn't look like it to me (no Breaks or
Conflicts), but I haven't actually tried it.
conflicts there are, texlive-base conflicts with all the old packages.
TL2013 made big changes to the naming of packages. If I go down
the
On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 10:57 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Peter Samuelson wrote:
texlive-lang-european? It doesn't look like it to me (no Breaks or
Conflicts), but I haven't actually tried it.
conflicts there are, texlive-base conflicts with all the old packages.
On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Ben Hutchings wrote:
How much do those packages weigh, Norbert? Are TeX transitional
packages particularly heavy?
In kg? In bit? In work time?
I really don't know why you think TeX is exempt from the usual
requirements to support clean upgrades between Debian releases.
11 matches
Mail list logo
