On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > So what do you suggest? Adding Breaks instead of Conflicts?
>
> Generally speaking, this would be preferable.
Why? "Generally speaking" this is not a helpful explanation.
> > The facts are that we cannot have tex-common >= 2 with old TeX Live,
> > and at the same time new TeX Live with old tex-common, both are
> > combinations ripe for breakage.
>
> But texlive-common 2009-4 already depends on tex-common (>= 2.0) which
> rules out the second combination. So why does it need to conflict with
> older tex-common?
I don't know. Maybe because we need exactely this behaviour (remove,
upgrade other, reinstall) behaviour to make sure that upgrades are
working.
I have no time to check on that and whether it works without the conflicts
in all those strange situations we have to deal with.
Best wishes
Norbert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining prein...@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TU Wien, Austria Debian TeX Task Force
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWEEK (n.)
A coat hanger recycled as a car aerial.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
