On Thursday 14 December 2006 22:18, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:38:42AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > Would it be possible to get a "carte blanche" for an etch-ignore tag for > > any RC bug that > > > > - has been introduced by adding alternative dependencies on texlive > > > > - on a package that had correct dependencies before that > > > > - if the texlive alternatives are listed second, so that the working > > combination will be installed if no TeX system was installed before > > No, I certainly don't think such bugs would warrant an etch-ignore tag, > especially seeing how they would be new bugs *introduced* after the start > of the freeze.
Steve, Tetex upstream terminated[0] May 2006 with the suggestion that people switch to Texlive. Tetex is going gently into that good night. Before Lenny rides to Etch's rescue, Tetex will be well bit-rotted. $ apt-cache rdepends tetex-base | wc -l 80 $ apt-cache rdepends tetex-bin | wc -l 202 ... A lot of packages need a working Tetex/Texlive. If I decide to use such a package a year from now, I'd rather have the possibility of using Texlive and the hope that most of the dependencies are correct rather than being forced to use an unsupported and unsupportable Tetex. FWIW, dependencies are a little different in the Tex world than in most of Debian. Because the need for macros, fonts, templates etc are driven by the user documents rather than the software, Debian Tex users are accustomed to having to find and install extra files or packages to make their docs build. There are no good solutions here but a best effort to accomodate Texlive is better than none. Frank's plan has the additional virtue that Tetex remains the default and Tetex dependencies are unaffected. Frank's plan provides a good starting point when that time comes for each Tetex user when the switch to Texlive becomes inescapable. Please reconsider, --Mike Bird [0] http://www.tug.org/tetex/
