On Sat, 2012-11-17 at 12:31 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 00:35:43 -0800, > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >systemd was in TC9, so you can upkarma based on TC9 testing. The texlive > >update is a blocker only for reasons of taking up lots of space on the > >DVD - normal testing that it still works, deps are sane etc should be > >all it needs. > > I don't know that it would be a blocker, but there are still older versions > of passivetex and xmltex which don't look like they should be in the repos > any more since it looks like texlive-passivetex and texlive-xmltex are > intended to replace them and have file conflicts with texlive-xmltex. > There is also dblatex which doesn't seem to be replaced by anything in > texlive (it's not obsoleted and there isn't a texlive-dblatex) which > pulls in passivetex and xmltex (which conflict with texlive-xmltex). Well, the key question is 'is this update at least better than the last one'. Though of course if there are still significant remaining problems, please do bring them to the attention of the maintainer... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
