On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 07:35:10PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > Contrast this with the "stable" version, which has migrated from > > stable-proposed-updates to stable. > > Sorted. After I realised you were talking about texlive-bin, while > texlive-latex-base is built from texlive-base, I read the reports a > little more thoroughly.
Ah, that was because I didn't read your original mail carefully, and just glanced at the bug and concluded that it was texlive-bin. Apologies. > It turns out (though this was still not clear from the reports) that if > I upgraded texlive-base-bin (and texlive-pdfetex, though I suspect > that's irrelevant)(which are built from texlive-bin) from > oldstable-proposed-updates, that changed something (probably fmtutil) > which enabled the existing texlive-latex-base to install. > > A bit tortuous, but I got there :-) Glad that you got there. But it's time to do the dist-upgrade dance and move to Lenny! ;-) Kumar -- "MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years of careful development." (By dmegg...@aix1.uottawa.ca) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100302133700.ga2...@bluemoon.alumni.iitm.ac.in
