Andrew Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In Etch tetex-base recommends tetex-doc which recommends tetex-bin. Since > aptitude defaults to installing recommends, "aptitude install tetex-base" > installs tetex-base, tetex-doc, tetex-bin and tex-common, with the last > three being marked as auto-installed.
You've got a point, but the result of the argument is just that it is a bug that tetex-base recommends tetex-doc. > [Sidenote: Looking at why tetex-doc is listed separately, I found another > bug. Etch has tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5etch1 which is a higher version than > Lenny (tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5). tetex-doc_3.0.dfsg.3-5 is built from > tetex-base source package. Unless someone says otherwise, expect a bug > report in 24 hrs]. Where's the bug? Anyway, it's completely useless to file it, since the only action we're going to take on tetex-base and tetex-doc is to file a "RM: [RoM]" bug against ftp.debian.og. > Well if you're going to ship a transitional tetex-base package, it should > attempt to provide equivalent functionality for people upgrading from Etch. We do not plan that, unless we are forced to by our small manpower. > Most of the depends and recommends already have alternative dependencies. Which means that it's trivial to fix them. > Are there any reasons not to keep tetex-base as a transition package > depending on either texlive or texlive-base for Lenny, then drop it for > Lenny+1? Yes, it doesn't make sense in my view. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
