Hi, I've been asked in private mail why we want to do this mass bug filing at all. I paste here the relevant parts of my answer:
[why not wait until after etch] We won't push that hard before etch is released, but it doesn't hurt to fix those bugs now if a package gets an upload for etch, anyway. [rumors that texlive does not provide identical functionality compared to teTeX] I've never heard someone claim that. There are some packages missing in texlive that were already obsolete when sarge's tetex was released, but still included in current tetex, but besides that I don't think there's any difference. [ the bug reports we submitted so far do not specify exact dependencies to use ] Indeed, since this requires knowledge about the internals of the package that needs more than a cursory look at the sources. The splitting of texlive is less buggy than tetex's ;-). But I don't see how that can be a reason not to file the bugs. It might be a reason not to be able to fix them promptly - and the problem of introducing RC bugs that way is the reason why I sent this mail to -release. [ why drop teTeX? I it dead upstream? ] Yes, it is. Thomas Esser (the te in teTeX) is still contributing to TeXlive, but no longer putting together his own distribution. [ why not let texlive Provide: tetex-*, and do "normal transition" ] This would overload the buildd's and their ftp mirrors, because the small "texlive" metapackage does not cover the complete teTeX, whereas texlive-full pulls in really everything, about 2 Gigabyte of files. And it doesn't make sense to introduce new metapackages that map teTeX's buggy splitting scheme on the texlive packages. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
