Thomas Kremer writes:
>>> By a new configuration option in all/debian/tpm2deb.cfg selected
>> ...
>>> be automated in the scripts tpm2deb-source.pl and
>>> all/deb/tpm2debcommon.pm. Those scripts have access to any dependency
>>
>> Are as commonplace as possible.
>
> You're mistaking abstraction
Hi
just obe thing, because I hate wasting my time.
> So, finally a constructive comment on your side... I'm impressed.
Stop being ignorant, take a look at the svn logs of the debian-tex svn since
2005 and tell me who is constructive and who is not.
*I* an doing the work here, and you can go to
Hi, Norbert.
On 12.10.2012 03:06, Norbert Preining wrote:
> You don't see the conceptual difference between collection splitting
> and splitting a class of files (DocFiles) of packages.
In other words: You insist, that debian packages must not correspond to
TeX Live packages (which are part of a
On 11.10.2012 20:53, Frank Kuester wrote:
>> Now, if you insist on keeping the debian package == Tex Live collection
>> correspondence,
>
> We do not insist. We already have implemented docsplitting.
Judging by his actions as well as his words, Norbert does insist.
In his view, any change in pa
Hi Everyone,
On Fr, 12 Okt 2012, Thomas Kremer wrote:
> >> Now, if you insist on keeping the debian package == Tex Live collection
> >> correspondence,
> >
> > We do not insist. We already have implemented docsplitting.
>
> Judging by his actions as well as his words, Norbert does insist.
> In
Hi Frank,
On Do, 11 Okt 2012, Frank Küster wrote:
> code or splitting logic, I don't see a better alternative than closing
> this bug.
I agree, but didn't I close this bug already?
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preining
Thomas Kremer writes:
> Now, if you insist on keeping the debian package == Tex Live collection
> correspondence,
We do not insist. We already have implemented docsplitting.
> no matter what inconveniences might occur from that
> decision, then you can close this bug as "wontfix", since any s
Hi Norbert,
On 05.10.2012 11:36, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Bugs of this kind I normally close, if I don't because I ignored them
> at some point they may rot forever in the BTS (which I consider BTW
> anyway not very useful at all). That is life, I honestly don't care.
Thank you for pointing out,
Hi Thomas,
On Do, 04 Okt 2012, Thomas Kremer wrote:
> And if you mean by "propose" that I was to give a complete splitting
> strategy on what should go where, I naively thought the maintainer would
> know better than me anyway, but if asked I would propose one font family
> per package. If there a
[sorry for accidentally dropping the bug address; OTOH this gives me the
opportunity to include only the bug-relevant parts in the bug]
On 04.10.2012 05:54, Norbert Preining wrote:
[...]
> Please go ahead and propose a splitting instead pf whining,
Well, I did exactly that in this bug report.
A
tags 688041 + upstream
thanks
Instead of whining why on earth don't you read through old bug reports where
the position has been stated many times.
Please go ahead and propose a splitting instead pf whining, a splitting that
will be accepted upstream.
We had too many of you crying put without
Dear Maintainer,
It's been two weeks now and there's no response yet.
Did you read this bug report?
In light of the several-years-ignored other bug reports in this package,
I would greatly appreciate some feedback on the reception of this one.
Thanks,
Thomas Kremer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
12 matches
Mail list logo
