Frank Küster | 1 May 11:36 2008
Picon

Bug#473216: texlive-latex-extra: foilhtml.sty undistributable?

Hilmar Preusse <hille42 <at> web.de> wrote:

> On 20.04.08 Frank Küster (frank <at> debian.org) wrote:
>> Norbert Preining <preining <at> logic.at> wrote:
>> > On Sa, 19 Apr 2008, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> Hi *;
>
>> >> While you are at changing the place where LPPL text lives, I think that
>> >> you could just paste it *inside* the debian/copyright file, as mandated
>> >> by Debian Policy [1].
>> >
>> > Yup, 97 * LPPL.txt, great idea ...
>> > 	97 * 19110 = 1.8Mb more space
>> > Ok ... if you think that is a good idea.
>> 
>> We could ask whether the lppl can be included in
>> /usr/share/common-licenses. 
>> 
> ACK! Is it enough to file a wishlist bug against base-files? 

I'm not sure; there has been some discussion whether the contents of
that directory should be defined by the Policy document, and some bugs
have been reassigned to policy; but I'm not sure what the conclusion
was. 

> I'd
> request to include all available versions of LPPL there.

Rather not; AFAIK only the LPPL v 1.3a or later is regarded as
(Continue reading)

DDPOMail robot | 1 May 11:50 2008
Picon

Possible problems in your Debian packages

=== texlive-base:
= 2 bug(s) that should be fixed for the next Debian release:
- #454330 <http://bugs.debian.org/454330>
  tetex-extra -- Doesn't purge all files after piuparts Install+Upgrade+Purge test
  Part of release goal: piuparts-clean archive
- #477060 <http://bugs.debian.org/477060>
  texlive-base: license of amslatex is unclear

=== texlive-bin:
= 1 bug(s) that should be fixed for the next Debian release:
- #454324 <http://bugs.debian.org/454324>
  texlive-base-bin -- Doesn't purge all files after piuparts Install+Upgrade+Purge test
  Part of release goal: piuparts-clean archive

=== Packages with a new upstream version according to DEHS:
  tetex-base  3.0po  (Debian: 3.0.dfsg.3-5)

------------ interesting stuff probably ends here ------------
This is an automated mail. These mails are sent monthly.
For more information about these mails, refer to
http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/DdpoByMail

We are sorry if this mail was useless for you. If you think it was
avoidable (that we can detect easily that the problems weren't
actually problems), please reply to it and let us know.

If you don't want to receive this type of mail any more, you can reply
to this mail and use one of the following commands at the beginning of
the mail:
- unsubscribe <email>
(Continue reading)

Hilmar Preusse | 1 May 18:45 2008
X-Face
Picon

"Someday someone should do this..."

Hi,

from the Misc development news (#6) posted on Tue, 15 Apr 2008 to
debian-devel-announce:

"Someday someone should do this..."
-----------------------------------

 Sometimes I stumble on interesting or useful ideas on mailingslists,
 which should be done, but the person having that in mind, doesn't
 have time to do those. So I came up with idea of a wiki page, where
 those tasks could be collected, so that people willing to do some
 useful work (for example because they are in NM and need to prove
 their skills) can maybe find some.

 I've started collecting some on http://wiki.debian.org/NMTasks and
 would be happy if you'd also use this page, to collect such ideas
 (in a form other people are able to understand) or to pick those
 ideas and implement them.

I guess, we should use this audience, e.g. for the license review,
doc-base registration, etc.

H.
--

-- 
For large values of one, one equals two, for small values of two.
  http://www.hilmar-preusse.de.vu/

Hilmar Preusse | 1 May 19:20 2008
X-Face
Picon

Bug#472810: tetex-base: Should this source package be removed?

On 13.04.08 Frank Küster (frank <at> debian.org) wrote:
> Daniel Schepler <schepler <at> math.berkeley.edu> wrote:

Hi,

> > I just noticed that there is still a tetex-base source package in
> > sid, and that it is the only source package providing the
> > tetex-doc binary package.  With texlive uploaded quite a while
> > ago, I was wondering whether this was an oversight, and whether
> > we should request the removal of the source package.
> 
> I'm not sure whether this has been discussed before - I'm just
> finding this bugreport while I'm trying to reduce my mail backlog
> after vacation.  But anyway, it would be nice if tetex-base could
> go. However, Hilmar is still working on checking tetex-doc's bugs.
> 
Well, I guess the packages itself can go away anyway. We can go
through the bugs of tetex-base, tetex-bin, tetex-doc, tetex-extra,
tetex-doc-nonfree *after* the packages have been removed and either
close them them or re-assign them to the TL packages.
Yes, this is on my list, but (guess what) has not the highest
priority.

H. 
--

-- 
sigmentation fault

Hilmar Preusse | 1 May 18:59 2008
X-Face
Picon

Bug#476459: texlive: Pulls in -doc packages when installed as a Build-dep in pbuilder

On 17.04.08 Norbert Preining (preining <at> logic.at) wrote:
> On Do, 17 Apr 2008, Frank Küster wrote:

Hi,

> > Well, is there really *no* solution? Or rather, and as I said in
> > my first mail: Is the cause maybe that my pbuilder (on etch) is
> > misconfigured and should be changed not to install recommends?
> 
> I am not sure how, but 
> 	cowbuilder --login --save-after-login
> 	... edit /etc/apt/apt.conf
> 	... add something about recommends
> but I cannot remember what.
> 
APT
{
  Install-Recommends "false";
};

H. 
--

-- 
sigmentation fault

Hilmar Preusse | 1 May 20:45 2008
X-Face
Picon

Bug#477160: [tex-live] Bug#477160: /usr/bin/xdvizilla: should be installed in /usr/lib/.../

tags 477160 + fixed-upstream
stop

On 25.04.08 Karl Berry (karl <at> freefriends.org) wrote:

Hi Stefan,

>     So maybe we can just remove it from the binary distribution, but
>     keep the sources in the CVS so that people who use the script
>     can still download it?
> 
> Sounds good to me.  So can you apply the patch below (or similar) to
> your source for your next release?  I checked it in to TL for now.
> 
Tagging as fixed in upstream. Many thanks!

Hilmar 
--

-- 
sigmentation fault

Debian Bug Tracking System | 1 May 20:48 2008
Picon

Processed: Re: Bug#477160: [tex-live] Bug#477160: /usr/bin/xdvizilla: should be installed in /usr/lib/.../

Processing commands for control <at> bugs.debian.org:

> tags 477160 + fixed-upstream
Bug#477160: /usr/bin/xdvizilla: should be installed in /usr/lib/.../
There were no tags set.
Tags added: fixed-upstream

> stop
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Frank Küster | 1 May 21:51 2008
Picon

Bug#472810: tetex-base: Should this source package be removed?

Hilmar Preusse <hille42 <at> web.de> wrote:

> On 13.04.08 Frank Küster (frank <at> debian.org) wrote:
>> Daniel Schepler <schepler <at> math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > I just noticed that there is still a tetex-base source package in
>> > sid, and that it is the only source package providing the
>> > tetex-doc binary package.  With texlive uploaded quite a while
>> > ago, I was wondering whether this was an oversight, and whether
>> > we should request the removal of the source package.
>> 
>> I'm not sure whether this has been discussed before - I'm just
>> finding this bugreport while I'm trying to reduce my mail backlog
>> after vacation.  But anyway, it would be nice if tetex-base could
>> go. However, Hilmar is still working on checking tetex-doc's bugs.
>> 
> Well, I guess the packages itself can go away anyway. We can go
> through the bugs of tetex-base, tetex-bin, tetex-doc, tetex-extra,

ACK

> tetex-doc-nonfree

That's a separate source package, anyway - and AFAIR it contains
material for beamer/pgf, too.

Regards, Frank
--

-- 
(Continue reading)

A. Costa | 2 May 05:52 2008
Picon

Bug#478992: update-texmf: Basic configuration file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf missing.

Package: tex-common
Version: 1.11
Severity: important

During upgrade 'Setup' fails:

    % apt-get install --reinstall tex-common ; echo $?
    Reading package lists... Done
    Building dependency tree       
    Reading state information... Done
    0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 reinstalled, 0 to remove and 267 not upgraded.
    1 not fully installed or removed.
    After this operation, 0B of additional disk space will be used.
    Setting up tex-common (1.11) ...
    Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf
    Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/15Plain.cnf
    Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/55Fonts.cnf
    Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/65BibTeX.cnf
    Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/75DviPS.cnf
    Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/85Misc.cnf
    Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf
    update-texmf: Basic configuration file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf missing.
    Exiting.
    dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure):
     subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
     Errors were encountered while processing:
      tex-common
      E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
      100

(Continue reading)

Norbert Preining | 2 May 09:21 2008
Picon

Bug#478992: update-texmf: Basic configuration file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf missing.

Hi,

On Do, 01 Mai 2008, A. Costa wrote:
>     Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf
>     Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/15Plain.cnf
>     Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/55Fonts.cnf
>     Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/65BibTeX.cnf
>     Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/75DviPS.cnf
>     Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/85Misc.cnf
>     Not replacing deleted config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf

You seem to have removed the config files, sorry, there is no way around
that. If you have done that without knowing you have to install
tex-common via dpkg and --install-missing (AFAIR) command line to get
the removed config files back.

If this is an error it is an error of dpkg, but it seems (again) that
you did remove the files.

Best wishes

Norbert

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining <at> logic.at>        Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining <at> debian.org>                         Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094      fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREELEY (n.)
Someone who continually annoys you by continually apologising for
(Continue reading)


Gmane