From: [email protected]

"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[email protected]> schrieb:

SDBK == Sebastian D B Krause [2004-8-13]

SDBK> Package: auctex
SDBK> Version: 11.14-3
SDBK> Severity: wishlist

SDBK> AUCTeX 11.50 has been released. It would be nice if we could get
SDBK> it into Sarge before the released.

Thanks for the remainder, inclusion in Sarge will be the case with great probability.

Hi Davide,

I hope that the tetex packages are in shape for sarge now. Therefore I
should have some spare time - if you need help in testing, or for some
error analyses, feel free to contact me.

Regards, Frank
--
Frank K�ster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

From: [email protected]

Hello folks,

I'd recommend to use AUCTeX 11.52, I guess. We have fixed quite a
number of issues: in particular, font-lock with Emacs-21.3 and XEmacs
produced a number of problems, and there were installation issues.
AUCTeX 11.52 still requires rather current versions of XEmacs (see the
RELEASE file for more information).

The Makefiles now support DESTDIR on the installation targets: that
should probably make building a package quite easier than with 11.51
or earlier.

11.52 fixes all major problems that were encountered with the 11.50
release. I would think it imprudent to base Sarge packages on earlier releases.

Since the usability has increased very much, it would be a pity if
Sarge was based on the quite outdated 11.14 release.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

From: [email protected]

[email protected] (Frank K�ster) wrote:

I hope that the tetex packages are in shape for sarge now. Therefore I
should have some spare time - if you need help in testing, or for some
error analyses, feel free to contact me.

As far as I can see, the only change necessary is to rename
auc-tex_toc.html to auctex_toc.html (plus a changelog closing this bug).

If you do not have time, would you mind me NMUing a 11.52-0.1 version?

Regards, Frank

--
Frank K�ster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

From: [email protected]

David Kastrup <[email protected]> schrieb:

Hello folks,

I'd recommend to use AUCTeX 11.52, I guess. We have fixed quite a
number of issues: in particular, font-lock with Emacs-21.3 and XEmacs produced a number of problems, and there were installation issues.
AUCTeX 11.52 still requires rather current versions of XEmacs (see the RELEASE file for more information).

I don't know which version of XEmacs will make it into sarge, but this
should not matter.

It will matter somehow, however, if the other recent bug about XEmacs interaction cannot be resolved. Currently offline, I do not have the URL
or bugnumber at hand, but I'll send it as soon as I got a connection
again - perhaps you, David, can have a look at it (XEmacs seems to load
our auctex instead of its own, and give an error).

Since the usability has increased very much, it would be a pity if
Sarge was based on the quite outdated 11.14 release.

I would argue for this very much, also. But we are in a hurry. I did not
yet check whether Davide is on vacation, but I rather think that's his
style of working: Not reacting for weeks, and in the end he comes up
with a real good solution to all the problems that accumulated so far. I
hope, however, that "the end" won't be too late this time...

Regards, Frank
--
Frank K�ster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

From: [email protected]

[email protected] (Frank K�ster) writes:

David Kastrup <[email protected]> schrieb:

It will matter somehow, however, if the other recent bug about
XEmacs interaction cannot be resolved. Currently offline, I do not
have the URL or bugnumber at hand, but I'll send it as soon as I got
a connection again - perhaps you, David, can have a look at it
(XEmacs seems to load our auctex instead of its own, and give an
error).

I don't use XEmacs, I don't use Debian. There is very little that I
can do in the way of getting compatibility problems with a particular
XEmacs installation that happens to use conflicting packages solved.

It probably is a matter of using the right options to configure and
having a separate package directory for packages supposed to override
the sumo packagings from xemacs.org.

That's entirely a problem of mixing the XEmacs package system and the
Debian package system, and I am clueless about either.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

From: [email protected]

"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[email protected]> wrote:

SDBK == Sebastian D B Krause [2004-8-13]

SDBK> Package: auctex
SDBK> Version: 11.14-3
SDBK> Severity: wishlist

SDBK> AUCTeX 11.50 has been released. It would be nice if we could get
SDBK> it into Sarge before the released.

Thanks for the remainder, inclusion in Sarge will be the case with great probability.

Davide, it's high time to do an upload. If this single mail I am citing wouldn't exist, I had thought that you were MIA: No activity in the
bugtracking system since May, no mails in the auctex list since June, no updates to your experimental auctex packages since June, no activities
in your other packages (mailcrypt, mimefilter, witalian, AFAIK) since
April, although there are patches, and other people discussing in the
bug reports.

If this mail wouldn't exist, I would think about taking over the package
and doing an upload so that 11.52 has a chance to get into sarge. It has
a much better functionality, and fixes nearly all bugs auctex has [no
one release-critical, for the bystanders].

PLEASE PLEASE answer! I do not want to hijack the package from you, and
I know that you're of the type of a quiet worker: You don't talk much,
you do your work, and then come up with your new version (and a good
one, I must say, the packaging of auctex _is_ impressive).

But in this case I fear you might be too late before the
freeze. Therefore I am torn between politeness and commitment to
Debian's AUCTeX users.

Please please make yourself heard! I'm sending a copy to debian-private
in order to make my actions a little more transparent.

Best regards, Frank
--
Frank K�ster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

From: [email protected]

[email protected] (Frank K�ster) schrieb:

[email protected] (Frank K�ster) wrote:

I hope that the tetex packages are in shape for sarge now. Therefore I
should have some spare time - if you need help in testing, or for some
error analyses, feel free to contact me.

As far as I can see, the only change necessary is to rename
auc-tex_toc.html to auctex_toc.html (plus a changelog closing this bug).

If you do not have time, would you mind me NMUing a 11.52-0.1 version?

Dear Davide,

I really do not want to take the package from you (I want everything but
that - I want to reduce my Debian work once sarge is released). But with
only this statement of yours that 11.50 will make it to sarge "with great probability" and no other reaction from you since then, I doubt whether
you have in fact enough time to do it.

And I would be very sad if sarge had no auctex-11.52, just because you
had less time for Debian, than you thought when you wrote that mail.

Therefore I have decided to do an NMU, with a version number of 11.14-really11.52-0.1, so that you can easily revert it (to something
like 11.14-really-11.14 or 11.52) if you want, uploading to the 3 days
delayed queue on gluck.

This will make it sure that there will is a chance for _some_ 11.52
package in sarge, even if you miss the deadline, but you still have
every freedom to decide which version should go into sarge.

I have prepared the package as follows:

- get the source of your latest beta package from

deb-src http://people.debian.org/~salve/apt ./

- get auctex-11.52.tar.gz from http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/auctex/

- rename it to auctex_11.14-really11.52.orig.tar.gz, still unpacking
into auctex-11.52/

- unpack it and copy the debian directory from your latest beta package
to auctex-11.52/debian

- and apply the patch below. The change to config.in is the same as I
posted to #258304, the change to rules.in is necessary because of an
upstream renaming.

I hope not to upset you with this - this is just meant as help, and as a service to our users.

Best regards, Frank

diff -Nur auctex-11.52.orig/debian/changelog auctex-11.52/debian/changelog
--- auctex-11.52.orig/debian/changelog Fri Aug 20 16:14:11 2004
+++ auctex-11.52/debian/changelog Sat Aug 21 20:40:04 2004
@@ -1,3 +1,16 @@
+auctex (11.14-really11.52-0.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * NMU because the maintainer seems to be kind of MIA, with a version
+ number that allows easy reverting, should he show up again before the
+ freeze.
+ * New stable upstream release (closes: #265598)
+ * This also fixes the following bugs (closes:
+ #257496, #244336, #245388, #246908, #120031, #244342, #239799)
+ * Don't display an error message in a fresh install - patch is in BTS
+ (Closes: #258304).
+
+ -- Frank K�ster <[email protected]> Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:39:36 +0200
+
auctex (11.14+CVS.2004.05.25.1-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low

* New CVS upstream source.
diff -Nur auctex-11.52.orig/debian/config.in auctex-11.52/debian/config.in
--- auctex-11.52.orig/debian/config.in Fri Aug 20 16:14:11 2004
+++ auctex-11.52/debian/config.in Sat Aug 21 20:49:13 2004
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@

From: [email protected]

[email protected] (Frank K�ster) schrieb:

If you do not have time, would you mind me NMUing a 11.52-0.1 version?

Two other things:

1. I have written in the last mail (no citation, because it's not yet
here again, or in the BTS) that I do not want to take the package
from your hands, and only do an NMU. You might think that this
contradicts with what I wrote in the mail that I copied to -private:

,----
| If this mail wouldn't exist, I would think about taking over the
| package and doing an upload so that 11.52 has a chance to get into
| sarge.
`----

But this wording was not really what I meant. Or rather, I chose
"take over" instead of NMUing because I had the idea that NMUs are
only allowed for release-critical bugs, technically.

But somebody else convinced me to do the NMU, and (as ), rather it is
meant as a help.

2. There's a missing build-dependency, which I discovered because I
always build packages in a sid chroot, even architecture-all
packages. Therefore the complete patch is as follows - one would
perhaps want to explicitly choose emacs21 instead of emacsen:

diff -Nur auctex-11.52.orig/debian/changelog auctex-11.52/debian/changelog
--- auctex-11.52.orig/debian/changelog Fri Aug 20 16:14:11 2004
+++ auctex-11.52/debian/changelog Sat Aug 21 20:40:04 2004
@@ -1,3 +1,16 @@
+auctex (11.14-really11.52-0.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * NMU because the maintainer seems to be kind of MIA, with a version
+ number that allows easy reverting, should he show up again before the
+ freeze.
+ * New stable upstream release (closes: #265598)
+ * This also fixes the following bugs (closes:
+ #257496, #244336, #245388, #246908, #120031, #244342, #239799)
+ * Don't display an error message in a fresh install - patch is in BTS
+ (Closes: #258304).
+
+ -- Frank K�ster <[email protected]> Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:39:36 +0200
+
auctex (11.14+CVS.2004.05.25.1-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low

* New CVS upstream source.
diff -Nur auctex-11.52.orig/debian/config.in auctex-11.52/debian/config.in
--- auctex-11.52.orig/debian/config.in Fri Aug 20 16:14:11 2004
+++ auctex-11.52/debian/config.in Sat Aug 21 20:49:13 2004
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@

From: [email protected]

[email protected] (Frank K�ster) wrote:

But somebody else convinced me to do the NMU, and (as ), rather it is
meant as a help.

Should have been: And (as Anthony Towns said), "NMUs aren't an insult,
they're not an attack, and they're not something to avoid or be ashamed
of.", rather it is meant as a help.

Excuse me, Frank
--
Frank K�ster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

From: [email protected]

Package: auctex
Version: 11.14-3
Severity: wishlist

AUCTeX 11.50 has been released. It would be nice if we could get it into
Sarge before the released.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)