Re: RFP: texmf

[Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:28:00AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
> >> >Note that tetex-beta may need a rebuild and possibly a dependency on
> >> >texmf-base; which is beyond my capabilities.
> >>
> >> It sounds like this is beyond our capabilities, too.  If this is going
> >> to break an existing package then there is no way we can accept it.
> >
> >The rebuild is due to tetex-beta's being ~ a year old, and libpng has
> >changed - so tetex-beta needs a rebuild with or without this new
> >package.
> 
> If you are saying that tetex-beta is currently inoperable then it should
> be removed from the distribution or fixed.  If it is still working ok,
> but needs an upgrade to work with texmf then, obviously, some
> synchronization needs to happen.

IIRC, it's not the whole tetex package that is "broken" because of the
libpng thing.  It's "just" pdftex and one other program (I forget). 
tex, latex, bibtex, etc all work fine.  I think.

But, regardless, tetex needs to be rebuilt and I think I remember the
maintainer stating that it WOULD be rebuilt soon.

--Chuck