Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/12/04/20:20:03
Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 01:53:51AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> >520066587150-0001 AT t-online DOT de (Jerome BENOIT) writes:
> >>I will try to rebuild the tetex-beta package this week-end. To avoid
> >>any confusion, I plan to rename it `tetex-bin' as suggested in a
> >>previous email.
> >Very nice.
> Actually, I'm not so sure. How is this going to avoid confusion? The old
> package will still be around and it will be named 'tetex-beta'.
How long would it take to phase them out? A fresh setup.ini that
doesn't mention tetex-beta would make tetex-beta invisible? Hmm, but
then we'd need a 'conflicts:' setup hint or so, and locally cached
setup.ini's could generate trouble.
Anyway, the best part is the fact that tetex-beta/bin gets a rebuild,
and we're talking. Of course, the renaming should be a bonus, not a
> >Maybe we should rename texmf-base to tetex-base? Also, if you (or
> >anyone else) would like to take over the texmf packages I did, please
> >do so. But suggestions are welcome too.
> If someone will be around to either fix setup.exe to deal with this scenario
> or fix the inevitable user questions then renaming sounds like it makes
And it would need some testing too. Phasing-out packages will be a
needed feature at some point, but maybe not highest priority now.
What about pre/postremove scripts, eg?
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke AT gnu DOT org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
- Raw text -