227443 2008-06-16 14:27 0000 app-text/tetex removal (was: Tracker for tetex bugs) 2009-05-30 14:22:16 0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Gentoo Linux Applications unspecified All Linux RESOLVED FIXED Tracker P2 normal --- 88448 141911 143164 145729 155224 164643 174269 189445 212524 227399 227593 262897 264598 1 aballier@gentoo.org treecleaner@gentoo.org fauli@gentoo.org tex@gentoo.org ulm@gentoo.org aballier@gentoo.org 2008-06-16 14:27:06 0000 Just a tracker bug for app-text/tetex bugs. carlo@gentoo.org 2008-06-16 14:37:49 0000 There is already one - bug 222501. aballier@gentoo.org 2008-06-16 14:41:55 0000 (In reply to comment #1) > There is already one - bug 222501. > not really, 222501 is at best a dependency of this bug. Fixing packages deps has nothing to do with a tracker bug that could help if someone wants to pick up tetex ;) carlo@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 13:06:10 0000 *** Bug 229043 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** aballier@gentoo.org 2008-09-02 10:15:52 0000 2 and a half month later, absolutely nothing has moved. CC'ing treecleaners. Quoting my old mail to -dev: The other option is to p.mask and last rite it, breaking mips and s390 trees, leaving them without tex support at all. This would also leave arm and sh with only ptex as tex support. Thus that is not really an option yet, but I suppose there is no point in waiting forever on this. Those arches are all dev profiles now I think. darkside@gentoo.org 2008-09-13 03:02:53 0000 (In reply to comment #4) > 2 and a half month later, absolutely nothing has moved. CC'ing treecleaners. > > Quoting my old mail to -dev: > The other option is to p.mask and last rite it, breaking mips and s390 > trees, leaving them without tex support at all. This would also > leave arm and sh with only ptex as tex support. Thus that is not really > an option yet, but I suppose there is no point in waiting forever on > this. > > Those arches are all dev profiles now I think. > I concur, can you provide a list of packages that need to be masked and last rited? aballier@gentoo.org 2008-10-26 14:51:33 0000 (In reply to comment #5) > I concur, can you provide a list of packages that need to be masked and last > rited? There should be none because texlive is stable these days... darkside@gentoo.org 2008-11-04 04:42:19 0000 (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > I concur, can you provide a list of packages that need to be masked and last > > rited? > > There should be none because texlive is stable these days... > ok, well. removing treecleaners since there is nothing for us to do here. add us back if you would like something removed (or do it yourself =p) thanks. ulm@gentoo.org 2009-03-17 21:48:33 0000 (In reply to comment #5) > I concur, can you provide a list of packages that need to be masked and > last rited? Remaining reverse dependencies of tetex are: app-text/xetex - removal request in bug 227593, for details see there dev-tex/xkeyval - only "any-of-many" type reverse dependencies (in dev-tex/glossaries and dev-tex/ha-prosper) - included in texlive-latexrecommended (and blocks against it) I think that both packages are clear candidates for removal. ulm@gentoo.org 2009-03-18 11:40:34 0000 > dev-tex/xkeyval Removal is handled in bug 262897. ulm@gentoo.org 2009-04-01 21:41:31 0000 CCing treecleaners again. Meanwhile, TeXlive is marked stable on all architectures of teTeX, except for m68k and mips. Remaining reverse dependencies of teTeX have been last-rited, see previous two comments. Considering that another 7 months have passed since comment #4, can we proceed with teTeX removal? Or shall we wait for mips and m68k until Judgment Day? The keywording bug 195815 for TeXlive is open since 18 months. (And I think that proper last rites and package masking should be done in this case, since teTeX was an important package. Silently removing keywords, as it was done some time ago, has the disadvantage that users see no meaningful warning message.) ulm@gentoo.org 2009-04-02 19:33:53 0000 # Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> (2 Apr 2009) # De-supported by upstream since three years, see http://tug.org/teTeX/ # Please use app-text/texlive as a replacement. A migration guide is at # http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/tex/texlive-migration-guide.xml # Package has open security issues in bug 264598. # Masked for removal in 60 days, bug 227443. app-text/tetex darkside@gentoo.org 2009-05-30 00:46:35 0000 removed from the tree. ulm@gentoo.org 2009-05-30 06:34:13 0000 Reopening until reverse dependencies are fixed (should be all of the "any-of-many" type, so no hurry): app-emacs/pymacs app-misc/chesstask app-office/lyx app-text/active-dvi app-text/dvipng app-text/jadetex app-text/xindy dev-lang/R dev-libs/beecrypt dev-ml/ocamlweb dev-python/epydoc dev-python/matplotlib dev-python/setupdocs dev-tex/bibtex2html dev-tex/dot2texi dev-tex/feynmf dev-tex/ha-prosper dev-tex/latex-beamer dev-tex/latex2rtf dev-tex/leaflet dev-tex/pgf dev-tex/pstplus dev-tex/xcolor dev-util/ragel media-gfx/sane-backends media-libs/libcaca media-sound/musescore media-video/dirac sci-mathematics/ginac sci-mathematics/maxima sci-mathematics/nusmv sci-mathematics/octave sci-visualization/epix sys-cluster/charm For current status, see: http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/misc/rindex/app-text/tetex http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/misc/dindex/app-text/tetex ulm@gentoo.org 2009-05-30 13:50:34 0000 Should be all done. (Including app-doc/doxygen which was missing in above list.) ulm@gentoo.org 2009-05-30 14:22:16 0000 I've replaced tetex-2.eclass by a placeholder. tetex-3.eclass (and tetex.eclass) is still used by app-text/ptex ebuilds.