Beta status: blockers, karma etc

[Ben Boeckel]

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 at redhat.com> 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