On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 16:33 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 08:15:23 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 03:06 +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > > * debian/control
> > > - latex209-base: need texlive-latex-base, not
> > > texlive-base
> > > (Closes: #607800)
> >
> > The actual change applied is:
> >
> > -Depends: texlive-base, texlive-binaries, ${misc:Depends}
> > +Depends: texlive-base, texlive-latex-base, ${misc:Depends}
> >
> > which still includes texlive-base but removes texlive-binaries. Which
> > is correct, the changelog or the control file?
> >
> AIUI the control file is correct. lasy5.tfm is in texlive-latex-base.
Well, the changelog and control file agree that texlive-latex-base
should have been added. :-) The query was whether the remaining
dependency should be on texlive-base or texlive-binaries.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
