Re: Is texlive-was-9 retired for Fedora 38?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 at 14:13, stan via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:30:28 +0000 (UTC)
Globe Trotter via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Is texlive-was-9 retired for Fedora 38? My package did not upgrade
> from F37 and so I was wondering about it.

As near as I can tell, there is no package in fedora called
texlive-was-9.



In Fedora 37 base there was:

```
/srv/web/pub/fedora/linux/releases/37/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/t/texlive-was-svn21439.0-59.fc37.noarch.rpm
Name        : texlive-was
Epoch       : 9
Version     : svn21439.0
Release     : 59.fc37
Architecture: noarch
Install Date: (not installed)
Group       : Unspecified
Size        : 14330
License     : Public Domain
Signature   : RSA/SHA256, Tue 02 Aug 2022 08:31:29 GMT, Key ID f55ad3fb5323552a
Source RPM  : texlive-2021-59.fc37.src.rpm
Build Date  : Mon 01 Aug 2022 16:30:45 GMT
Build Host  : buildvm-ppc64le-37.iad2.fedoraproject.org
Relocations : (not relocatable)
Packager    : Fedora Project
Vendor      : Fedora Project
URL         : http://tug.org/texlive/
Bug URL     : https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/texlive
Summary     : A collection of small packages by Walter Schmidt
Description :
A bundle of packages that arise in the author's area of
interest: compliance of maths typesetting with ISO standards;
symbols that work in both maths and text modes commas for both
decimal separator and maths; and upright Greek letters in
maths.
```

These were built out of the main texlive package. This package was also in the F38 repository

/pub/fedora/linux/releases/38/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/t/texlive-was-svn64691-65.fc38.noarch.rpm

so it should have been updated unless some other package problem stopped it. Try doing a `dnf reposync`
 
There is a package
texlive-wasy-10:svn53533-65.fc38.noarch.rpm
that contains
/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/source/public/wasy/wasy9.mf
in F38.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=33307983

Is that what you mean?  It seems to be there in F38.  Is it possible
that it has conflicts, and so wasn't updated?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue


--
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux