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 binary package from texlive?
>
>>> That sounds like a good idea, except that I'm not convince we want a
>>> separate package.
>
>> I agree with this.
>
> 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 teTeX
(except transitional packages). For etch, we need a different approach
to solve this.
Since fiddling with patches is not an option at this point in the
release cycle, I guess we solve the RC bug simply by excluding it from
the texlive package. This way both teTeX and TeXLive users have a
working dvidvi in etch.
> 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.
I suggest that you upload to unstable with
Depends: texlive-base-bin | tetex-bin, ${shlibs:Depends}
and ask debian-release for inclusion into etch, referring to this bug,
and we upload texlive-bin without dvidvi, also targetted at etch.
Then we have time to discuss about the packaging in lenny.
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
