Bug 472626 - Conflicts with tetex-perltex
Summary: Conflicts with tetex-perltex
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: tetex-perltex
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom "spot" Callaway
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-11-22 02:07 UTC by Michael Schwendt
Modified: 2009-12-18 16:00 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-12-18 16:00:23 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michael Schwendt 2008-11-22 02:07:46 UTC
texlive-texmf-doc-2007-26.fc10.noarch
  File conflict with: tetex-bytefield-1.2a-4.fc10.noarch
     /usr/share/texmf/doc/latex/bytefield/bytefield.pdf
  File conflict with: tetex-perltex-1.7-1.fc10.noarch
     /usr/share/texmf/doc/latex/perltex/perltex.pdf

texlive-texmf-latex-2007-26.fc10.noarch
  File conflict with: tetex-bytefield-1.2a-4.fc10.noarch
     /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/bytefield/bytefield.sty
  File conflict with: tetex-perltex-1.7-1.fc10.noarch
     /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/perltex/perltex.sty

Comment 1 Bug Zapper 2008-11-26 05:46:22 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle.
Changing version to '10'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 2 John Guthrie 2009-01-08 05:50:45 UTC
I'm trying to upgrade a machine that has the tetex-doc, tetex-perltex, and tetex-bytefield packages installed on it.  (I recently upgraded to F10 from F8.)  I'm now in the process of eliminating all of the conflicts that happen when I try to run "yum update".  I have been getting both of the above mentioned errors.  I should note that right now, in the pre-upgraded state, texlive-texmf-doc is not installed.

Digging a little deeper, one finds that the texlive-texmf-doc package obsoletes tetex-doc.  That would explain why yum is trying to install it when I try to upgrade.  However, the tetex-perltex package is not being obsoleted.  I'm wondering if tetex-perltex should be obsoleted by some texlive subpackage.  Or perhaps, even better, the perltex parts from texlive could be separated out into their own texlive subpackage, and that package could obsolete the tetex-perltex package.  Any thoughts?

I haven't been able to do a similar analysis for the tetex-bytefield, but would a similar re-packaging work there as well?

Comment 3 John Guthrie 2009-01-11 19:12:20 UTC
Actually, what I wrote above regarding having some texlive subpackage obsolete tetex-perltex won't quite work.  It turns out that tetex-perltex is the only package that actually provides /usr/bin/perltex.  So obsoleting that package would be less than useful.  Of course, this begs the question of why texlive is including documentation for programs that aren't contained in it...

Comment 4 Bug Zapper 2009-11-18 08:56:21 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 10.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '10'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 5 Bug Zapper 2009-12-18 06:55:08 UTC
Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Comment 6 Michael Schwendt 2009-12-18 07:24:55 UTC
http://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-results/2009-December/002390.html

tetex-perltex-1.9-1.fc13.noarch
texlive-texmf-doc-2007-34.fc13.noarch
  /usr/share/texmf/doc/latex/perltex/perltex.pdf

Comment 7 Jindrich Novy 2009-12-18 08:23:51 UTC
Note that texlive-texmf now ships newer perltex (2.0) than it is present in tetex-pertex (1.9). tetex-perltex should be removed from the repository. It is no more needed. Furthermore texlive-texmf-latex already obsoletes tetex-perltex. The recent conflict is caused only because of the fact that docs are shipped separatelly in -doc subpackage for all packages.

Comment 8 Michael Schwendt 2009-12-18 08:55:09 UTC
This is how to retire a package:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife

Comment 9 Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-12-18 16:00:23 UTC
Retired and dead.packaged, request to block from rawhide in trac. Closing.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.