Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing (was: passivetex: destroys local configuration)
Hi Frank, hi Steve! On Don, 12 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote: source package or anywhere in Debian (main). Thus it seems the package is not even functional. On Don, 12 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: However, gstreamer0.8 has a build-dependency on it, and I think we might miss that. Do you have a solution for gstreamer0.8? I could do the following: Take the sources from texlive (where passivetex was excluded due to its existence in debian) and try to fix the passivetex packages. It shouldn't be too complicated, but probably would be a complete rewrite of the scripts/rules. Would this be ok for NMU? Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at Università di Siena gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- DITHERINGTON (n) Sudden access to panic experienced by one who realises that he is being drawn inexorably into a clabby (q.v.) conversion, i.e. one he has no hope of enjoying, benefiting from or understanding. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, gstreamer0.8 has a build-dependency on it, and I think we might miss that. Do you have a solution for gstreamer0.8? I'll look into it during the weekend. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Don, 12 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: However, gstreamer0.8 has a build-dependency on it, and I think we might miss that. Do you have a solution for gstreamer0.8? I could do the following: Take the sources from texlive (where passivetex was excluded due to its existence in debian) and try to fix the passivetex packages. It shouldn't be too complicated, but probably would be a complete rewrite of the scripts/rules. Would this be ok for NMU? It would also be a new upstream release, I guess (at least current upstream has a tests subdirectory, while the Debian package has examples instead). I don't think this would be good for an NMU, rather for a takeover. Which I wouldn't mind, if you want to take the task. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing (was: passivetex: destroys local configuration)
On 12.01.06 Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:41:47PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Hi *, I was about to create a patch for the package, but I discovered more issues. Most notably, the Makefile in the example directory fails because it cannot find a file tei.xsl, which does not exist in the source package or anywhere in Debian (main). Thus it seems the package is not even functional. However, gstreamer0.8 has a build-dependency on it, and I think we might miss that. Do you have a solution for gstreamer0.8? I could build the docs of gstreamer0.8 without having passivetex installed. I could not test the full build as it gave an FTBFS at another place, which was definitely not caused by missing passivetex. As Frank stated passivetex is not functional the generated doccs should not look different than without passivetex. H. -- When your memory goes, forget it! http://www.hilmar-preusse.de.vu/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing
On Fre, 13 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote: I could do the following: Take the sources from texlive (where passivetex was excluded due to its existence in debian) and try to fix the passivetex packages. It shouldn't be too complicated, but probably would be a complete rewrite of the scripts/rules. Would this be ok for NMU? It would also be a new upstream release, I guess (at least current upstream has a tests subdirectory, while the Debian package has What I meant is take the debian stuff as I would have used it for passivetex, but leave the .orig.tar.gz. examples instead). I don't think this would be good for an NMU, rather for a takeover. Which I wouldn't mind, if you want to take the Maybe I prepare a NMU over the weekend of next week, it will be a severe restructuring of the debian part, but nothing else. If someone else does it in the meantime, also good. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at Università di Siena gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- YORK (vb.) To shift the position of the shoulder straps on a heavy bag or rucksack in a vain attempt to make it seem lighter. Hence : to laugh falsely and heartily at an unfunny remark. 'Jasmine yorked politely, loathing him to the depths of her being' - Virginia Woolf. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing (was: passivetex: destroys local configuration)
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 09:51:35AM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote: Hi Frank, hi Steve! On Don, 12 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote: source package or anywhere in Debian (main). Thus it seems the package is not even functional. On Don, 12 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: However, gstreamer0.8 has a build-dependency on it, and I think we might miss that. Do you have a solution for gstreamer0.8? I could do the following: Take the sources from texlive (where passivetex was excluded due to its existence in debian) and try to fix the passivetex packages. It shouldn't be too complicated, but probably would be a complete rewrite of the scripts/rules. Would this be ok for NMU? Not really; it sounds like a hijacking to me. Of course, the maintainer field lists a mailing list, and there are no uploaders listed, so I'm not sure anybody *cares*, but it's still not the sort of change to make unless you're prepared to maintain the package long-term. Which also probably means going through the orphaning process first. On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:00:56PM +0100, Hilmar Preusse wrote: On 12.01.06 Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:41:47PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Hi *, I was about to create a patch for the package, but I discovered more issues. Most notably, the Makefile in the example directory fails because it cannot find a file tei.xsl, which does not exist in the source package or anywhere in Debian (main). Thus it seems the package is not even functional. However, gstreamer0.8 has a build-dependency on it, and I think we might miss that. Do you have a solution for gstreamer0.8? I could build the docs of gstreamer0.8 without having passivetex installed. I could not test the full build as it gave an FTBFS at another place, which was definitely not caused by missing passivetex. As Frank stated passivetex is not functional the generated doccs should not look different than without passivetex. Then if Norbert opts not to adopt passivetex, it sounds like an RC bug against gstreamer0.8 asking it not to depend on passivetex would be the answer? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing
Hilmar Preusse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could build the docs of gstreamer0.8 without having passivetex installed. I could not test the full build as it gave an FTBFS at another place, which was definitely not caused by missing passivetex. I didn't get a FTBFS in a sid chroot (i386). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, gstreamer0.8 has a build-dependency on it, and I think we might miss that. Do you have a solution for gstreamer0.8? Yes: I tried to find out which problems would occur, and it turned out that the build-dependency can simply be dropped: #347884. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing
severity 347884 serious # passivetex will be removed from testing thanks Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could build the docs of gstreamer0.8 without having passivetex installed. I could not test the full build as it gave an FTBFS at another place, which was definitely not caused by missing passivetex. As Frank stated passivetex is not functional the generated doccs should not look different than without passivetex. Then if Norbert opts not to adopt passivetex, it sounds like an RC bug against gstreamer0.8 asking it not to depend on passivetex would be the answer? Adjusted severity. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing (was: passivetex: destroys local configuration)
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The package has two serious bugs, and some normal ones: I was about to create a patch for the package, but I discovered more issues. Most notably, the Makefile in the example directory fails because it cannot find a file tei.xsl, which does not exist in the source package or anywhere in Debian (main). Thus it seems the package is not even functional. Given that - The package has 2 RC bugs without maintainer reaction, one of them for more than 2 months - and one normal without maintainer reaction (after it has been assigned to passivetex), and no action at all for 2 years - passivetex seems to have functionality problems (see above, and the normal bug's log mentions that xmlto wants to switch away from passivetex) - No package Depends on it, and only one (xmlto, see above) Suggests it, and one Recommends it (xmltex) it, I suggest to remove the package from testing. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#337436: please remove passivetex from testing (was: passivetex: destroys local configuration)
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:41:47PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The package has two serious bugs, and some normal ones: I was about to create a patch for the package, but I discovered more issues. Most notably, the Makefile in the example directory fails because it cannot find a file tei.xsl, which does not exist in the source package or anywhere in Debian (main). Thus it seems the package is not even functional. Given that - The package has 2 RC bugs without maintainer reaction, one of them for more than 2 months - and one normal without maintainer reaction (after it has been assigned to passivetex), and no action at all for 2 years - passivetex seems to have functionality problems (see above, and the normal bug's log mentions that xmlto wants to switch away from passivetex) - No package Depends on it, and only one (xmlto, see above) Suggests it, and one Recommends it (xmltex) it, However, gstreamer0.8 has a build-dependency on it, and I think we might miss that. Do you have a solution for gstreamer0.8? Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
