On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 18:31:14 GMT, 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). Maybe a tracking bug should be made for everything that has been obsoleted with the new texlive packaging? I have this[1] bug open to properly obsolete a package I did long ago which is now in texlive proper. It doesn't conflict at the RPM level, but I don't know how the metapost path resolution determines which to use if both are installed. --Ben [1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573863 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
