Hi, Excuse me for slow response. I was traveling w/o Debian access. I am now back in Japan with net access.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 07:52:32PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > On 01/20/2011 03:58 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: unblock > > > > > > Please unblock package debiandoc-sgml > > > > So, the change is as follows (after re-ordering, so that the diff shows > some sense): I see it is quite cryptic ... I should have reordered it instead of using one of the old git commits from the 2.1.16 package preparation. My apologies. > -Recommends: ghostscript | gs, texlive-latex-extra, texinfo, > libpaperg, texlive-latex-recommended, texlive-latex-base, > texlive-fonts-recommended > +Recommends: ghostscript | gs-esp | gs, texlive-latex-extra, texinfo, > texlive > -Suggests: debiandoc-sgml-doc, latex-cjk-all, hlatex, littex > +Suggests: debiandoc-sgml-doc, texlive-lang-all, latex-cjk-all > > Why gs-esp got added in the Recommends? The reason is to allow backport (sarge) and also possibly support some older LTS releases for Ubuntu. This may have been excessive change to you in my retrospective. (Technically, gs-gpl in the old archive was chosen as the default for the virtual package gs. The gs-gpl package did not work well with CJK PDF creation. The gs-esp package is the choice for such older system.) > Why texlive got added? Adding it brings back texlive-fonts-recommended, > texlive-latex-recommended and texlive-latex-base. The "texlive" is used as a short hand for 3 packages existed in 2.1.15 reflecting texlive package dependency. It is meant to be no-op. > I thought that those > were removed because too heavy for lambda users. Bug report was on 2.1.16 which also added texlive-lang-all to "Recommends" and it is moved to "Suggests" as requested. > The changes seem like a no-op to me… I could be wrong though but will > need an explanation. The change to texlive is no-op as I stated. > (The version thing in the changelog is also odd… but Meh) Debian policy: "5.6.12 Version" states: The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and the characters . + - : ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon, tilde) and should start with a digit. If there is no debian_revision then hyphens are not allowed; if there is no epoch then colons are not allowed. It is native package so I can not use "-". I did not want to make this look like NMU. So I did not use ".". I did not want to use epoch. So I did not use ":". So I am left with "+" or "~". I have already uploaded 2.1.17 ... 2.1.19 to experimental. My choice could have been 2.1.16+squeeze1 or 2.1.17~squeeze1. 2.1.16 < 2.1.16+squeeze1 < 2.1.17~squeeze1 < 2.1.17 ... 2.1.19 So I chose "2.1.16+squeeze1". > Regards, I hope that this explains my intentions. Regards, Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
