Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> wrote: > Frank Küster wrote: >> Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> wrote: >> >>> Norbert Preining wrote: >>>> On Do, 04 Jun 2009, Luk Claes wrote: >>>>> Except for arguing, mixing (non?) bugs and resisting to upload an easy >>>>> workaround might have made things worse btw... >>>> And that easy workaround would be??? >>> To only conditionaly use a command that seems to not always be available. >> >> COULD YOU PLEASE START READING WHAT WE ARE WRITING? > > Could you please do that from the start and not spread fud and shout all > the time?
I still think that I have tried to give technical arguments all the time, until I had to should this time. I've not yet read one from you, it was Agustin who helped. >> texlive-base's postrm, upon REMOVE, uses a command from tex-common, on >> which it already DEPENDS. This is allowed by policy. > > Sure, though policy not describing what really happens will only make it > a bug in policy AND your package... Sad but true. >> The fact that in this particular chroot, texlive-base was installed >> without tex-common being installed, or even unpacked, is NOT A BUG OF >> tex-common. > > Sure it is. Err, that I still don't understand. I agree that it's a bug in texlive-base not to be able to cope with that. But how can it be a bug of package b that it is not installed, when package a depends on it and is installed? Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
