Debian Bug report logs - #606128
Please update to newest stable version of pgf (2.10)

version graph

Package: pgf; Maintainer for pgf is OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>; Source for pgf is src:texlive-base.

Reported by: Stefan Krompass <stefan.krompass@cs.tum.edu>

Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:15:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Found in version pgf/2.00-1

Fixed in version pgf/2.10-1

Done: OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>:
Bug#606128; Package pgf. (Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:15:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Stefan Krompass <stefan.krompass@cs.tum.edu>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>. (Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:15:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Krompass <stefan.krompass@cs.tum.edu>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Please update to newest stable version of pgf (2.10)
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:06:49 +0100
Package: pgf
Version: 2.00-1
Severity: wishlist

There is a new version of pgf available at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgf/. Would it be possible to include the new
version?



-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages pgf depends on:
ii  latex-xcolor                  2.11-1     Easy driver-independent TeX class 
ii  texlive-latex-recommended     2009-11    TeX Live: LaTeX recommended packag

pgf recommends no packages.

pgf suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>:
Bug#606128; Package pgf. (Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:33:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>. (Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:33:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 606128@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>
To: 606128@bugs.debian.org
Subject: ETA for 2.10?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:51:03 +0530 (IST)
Hi,

I was just wondering if there was an ETA for 2.10. If not, I might take a 
whirl at packaging it myself. Thanks.

                                                          Regards, Faheem




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org:
Bug#606128; Package pgf. (Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:51:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. (Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:51:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 606128@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>
To: Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>, 606128@bugs.debian.org
Cc: control@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#606128: ETA for 2.10?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:47:36 +0900
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
tag 606128 pending
thanks

  Hi.

  Sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm preparing 2.10 now. Please wait
a few days.

  Thanks.

At Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:51:03 +0530 (IST),
Faheem Mitha wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering if there was an ETA for 2.10. If not, I might take a
> whirl at packaging it myself. Thanks.
>
>                                                            Regards, Faheem
>


----
  OHURA Makoto: ohura@debian.org(Debian Project)
                ohura@netfort.gr.jp(LILO/Netfort)
  GnuPG public key: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~ohura/gpg.asc.txt
        fingerprint: 54F6 D1B1 2EE1 81CD 65E3  A1D3 EEA2 EFA2 77DC E083
  http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~ohura/
[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Added tag(s) pending. Request was from OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:51:14 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>:
Bug#606128; Package pgf. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:39:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>. (Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:39:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #22 received at 606128@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>
To: Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) <danai.sae-han@edpnet.be>
Cc: debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org, pgf-users@lists.sourceforge.net, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>, 606128@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian package for PGF 2.10
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 03:07:29 +0530 (IST)
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Danai,

Thanks for the helpful comments. I just posted some remarks on building 
the 2.10 PGF package to tex.sx. I'm also ccing the Debian wishlist bug on 
2.10.

http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/2044/how-to-install-a-current-version-of-tikz/12589#12589

I'm not entirely clear what to do with your comments below. Should I work 
on this package some more and upload it somewhere? Should I file bugs 
against the Debian package? Something else?

More comments below.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) wrote:

> Hi Faheem
>
> 2011/2/27 Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
>>
>> Ohura-san is planning an update, yes. See
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=606128
>
> I see.
>
>> Actually, I just built the package with a few minor changes to the 2.0
>> Debian packaging.
>>
>> Lintian reports the following errors/warnings.
>>
>> faheem@orwell:/usr/local/src/pgf$ lintian pgf_2.10-0_all.deb
>>
>> E: pgf: debian-revision-should-not-be-zero 2.10-0
>> W: pgf: doc-base-abstract-field-is-template pgf:6
>> W: pgf: executable-not-elf-or-script
>> ./usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathutil.code.tex
>> W: pgf: executable-not-elf-or-script
>> ./usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathcalc.code.tex
>> W: pgf: executable-not-elf-or-script
>> ./usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathparser.code.tex
>> W: pgf: maintainer-script-empty preinst
>> W: pgf: command-with-path-in-maintainer-script postinst:24 /usr/bin/mktexlsr
>> W: pgf: maintainer-script-empty prerm
>> W: pgf: command-with-path-in-maintainer-script postrm:25 /usr/bin/mktexlsr
>>
>> 2) The executable-not-elf-or-script presumably mean that these files
>> shouldn't be executable? It is true that these three files under that
>> directory are executable, but the rest aren't. Probably an unstream issue.
>
> If you build the package with something like a "get-orig-source"
> target, then you will always have this issue.  You can add a "chmod
> -x" in the debian/rules, and later on ask upstream to remove the
> executable bit.

Ok. Just stick a

chmod -x filename

in the rules file?

>> 3) debian-revision-should-not-be-zero refers to
>> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/doc-base-abstract-field-is-template.html
>
> You mean "doc-base-abstract-field-is-template" I presume.

Yes. Sorry.

>> I guess this refers to /usr/share/doc-base/pgf and specifically the
>> description field. Ie.
>>
>> Document: pgf
>> Title: User s Guide to the PGF Package, Version
>> Author: Till Tantau <tantau@cs.tu-berlin.de>
>> Abstract: This manual describes what pgf is
>>  and how it can be used to
>>  manage online manuals on Debian systems.
>
> That is indeed the default text and should be changed.
>
>> Possibly the Title should be
>>
>> User's Guide to the PGF Package, Version 2.10
>>
>> and the Abstract something like
>>
>> Abstract: Guide for usage of PGF and TikZ.
>>
>> Not sure what one should say here.
>
> You could add some attributes like how thorough and beautifully
> written the documentation is.  That's one of the first things that
> impressed me when I looked at PGF and TikZ.
> Most documents are boring and technical, but this guide has a nice
> introduction, large reference material, etc.  Add something that
> compels end users to download the manual.

It's true. The TikZ/PGF is most excellent, and PGF represents an 
improbable amount of high quality work.

How about

Document: pgf
Title: User s Guide to the PGF Package, Version
Author: Till Tantau <tantau@cs.tu-berlin.de>

Abstract: This is a comprehensive and high quality manual for PGF and 
TikZ, including several tutorials and a detailed reference. It discusses 
both the more accessible frontend subsystems such as TikZ, and more 
low-level and powerful functionality that may not be needed by the average 
user.

Section: Text

(With feedback from 
http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/41/tex-latex-and-friends)

>> 4) maintainer-script-empty preinst (ditto for prerm)
>> refers to http://lintian.debian.org/tags/maintainer-script-empty.html
>>
>> So preinst and prerm should be removed?
>
> Yes.

Ok.

>> 5) command-with-path-in-maintainer-script? This refers to
>> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/command-with-path-in-maintainer-script.html.
>> Should one just use mktexlsr then?
>
> Definitely.  Sometimes you would want to have your own "mktexlsr" and
> therefore change the $PATH variable.

Ok.

>> I tried using the package and it seems to work ok.
>
> Nice.
>
>> However
>>
>> texdoctk pgf
>>
>> does not work.
>>
>> Running just
>>
>> texdoctk
>>
>> and then searching for pgf brings up a window, but when I click on it I get
>> an error. So I must have done something wrong here.
>
> I believe there was a discussion a long time ago about the differences
> between texdoc and texdoctk.  texdoc is the one used by TeX Live; I
> don't know if texdoctk is still actively maintained, but was used with
> teTeX.  Try "texdoc -s pgf" to get some results in a terminal.

Yes, texdoc works as you described. Is texdoctk supposed to work or not?

                                                        Regards, Faheem

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>:
Bug#606128; Package pgf. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 14:36:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) <danai.sae-han@edpnet.be>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 14:36:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #27 received at 606128@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) <danai.sae-han@edpnet.be>
To: Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>
Cc: debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org, pgf-users@lists.sourceforge.net, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>, 606128@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian package for PGF 2.10
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 15:32:03 +0100
Hi Faheem

2011/3/4 Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
>
> I'm not entirely clear what to do with your comments below. Should I work on
> this package some more and upload it somewhere? Should I file bugs against
> the Debian package? Something else?

I would convey your changes to Makoto.  I'm sure he's willing to add
your changes to his development tree and upload them in the next
release.

Adding an extra target in the debian/rules to automatically download
and package the version would improve the quality of the PGF package.
Whenever the upstream package releases something new, it's easy for
both the maintainer and regular users to retrieve the latest upstream
package and start working on it.

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) wrote:
>
>> 2011/2/27 Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
>>>
>> If you build the package with something like a "get-orig-source"
>> target, then you will always have this issue.  You can add a "chmod
>> -x" in the debian/rules, and later on ask upstream to remove the
>> executable bit.
>
> Ok. Just stick a
>
> chmod -x filename
>
> in the rules file?

That would solve the problem, indeed.  Meanwhile, ask upstream to
remove the executable bit on their source.  In the next upstream
release you won't have to insert the "chmod -x" anymore.

>> You could add some attributes like how thorough and beautifully
>> written the documentation is.  That's one of the first things that
>> impressed me when I looked at PGF and TikZ.
>> Most documents are boring and technical, but this guide has a nice
>> introduction, large reference material, etc.  Add something that
>> compels end users to download the manual.
>
> It's true. The TikZ/PGF is most excellent, and PGF represents an improbable
> amount of high quality work.
>
> How about
>
> Document: pgf
> Title: User s Guide to the PGF Package, Version

No genitive " s ".  Just "User guide to the PGF package"

> Author: Till Tantau <tantau@cs.tu-berlin.de>
>
> Abstract: This is a comprehensive and high quality manual for PGF and TikZ,
> including several tutorials and a detailed reference. It discusses both the
> more accessible frontend subsystems such as TikZ, and more low-level and
> powerful functionality that may not be needed by the average user.
>
> Section: Text
>
> (With feedback from
> http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/41/tex-latex-and-friends)

Looks fine to me!

>>> However
>>>
>>> texdoctk pgf
>>>
>>> does not work.
>>>
>>> Running just
>>>
>>> texdoctk
>>>
>>> and then searching for pgf brings up a window, but when I click on it I
>>> get
>>> an error. So I must have done something wrong here.
>>
>> I believe there was a discussion a long time ago about the differences
>> between texdoc and texdoctk.  texdoc is the one used by TeX Live; I
>> don't know if texdoctk is still actively maintained, but was used with
>> teTeX.  Try "texdoc -s pgf" to get some results in a terminal.
>
> Yes, texdoc works as you described. Is texdoctk supposed to work or not?

I don't think so.  It's just there for legacy reasons, I suppose.


Cheers


-- 
Danai




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>:
Bug#606128; Package pgf. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 04:12:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 04:12:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #32 received at 606128@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>
To: Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) <danai.sae-han@edpnet.be>
Cc: debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org, pgf-users@lists.sourceforge.net, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>, 606128@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian package for PGF 2.10
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:28:37 +0530 (IST)
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) wrote:

> Hi Faheem
>
> 2011/3/4 Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
>>
>> I'm not entirely clear what to do with your comments below. Should I work on
>> this package some more and upload it somewhere? Should I file bugs against
>> the Debian package? Something else?
>
> I would convey your changes to Makoto.  I'm sure he's willing to add
> your changes to his development tree and upload them in the next
> release.

Should this be a wishlist bug?

> Adding an extra target in the debian/rules to automatically download
> and package the version would improve the quality of the PGF package.
> Whenever the upstream package releases something new, it's easy for
> both the maintainer and regular users to retrieve the latest upstream
> package and start working on it.

That sounds interesting. Can you point me to some documentation for this?

                                                         Regards, Faheem

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>:
Bug#606128; Package pgf. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 05:57:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) <danai.sae-han@edpnet.be>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 05:57:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #37 received at 606128@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) <danai.sae-han@edpnet.be>
To: Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>
Cc: debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org, pgf-users@lists.sourceforge.net, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>, 606128@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian package for PGF 2.10
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 06:52:15 +0100
Hi Faheem

2011/3/6 Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) wrote:
>
>> 2011/3/4 Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely clear what to do with your comments below. Should I work
>>> on
>>> this package some more and upload it somewhere? Should I file bugs
>>> against
>>> the Debian package? Something else?
>>
>> I would convey your changes to Makoto.  I'm sure he's willing to add
>> your changes to his development tree and upload them in the next
>> release.
>
> Should this be a wishlist bug?

That would be best, so that your request gets tracked into the system.
 And wishlist bug reports are a handy TODO list for the package
maintainer.

>> Adding an extra target in the debian/rules to automatically download
>> and package the version would improve the quality of the PGF package.
>> Whenever the upstream package releases something new, it's easy for
>> both the maintainer and regular users to retrieve the latest upstream
>> package and start working on it.
>
> That sounds interesting. Can you point me to some documentation for this?

Have a look at the Debian Policy:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html
It is totally optional, but I find it very useful, e.g for the "cjk"
package.  You can easily update the package and get the latest CVS,
SVN, GIT, etc. version and upload it to Debian.

Best regards


-- 
Danai




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>:
Bug#606128; Package pgf. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:30:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:30:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #42 received at 606128@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>
To: Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) <danai.sae-han@edpnet.be>
Cc: debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org, pgf-users@lists.sourceforge.net, OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>, 606128@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian package for PGF 2.10
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:56:37 +0530 (IST)
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) wrote:

> Hi Faheem
>
> 2011/3/6 Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:

>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) wrote:
>>
>>> 2011/3/4 Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu>:

>>>> I'm not entirely clear what to do with your comments below. Should I 
>>>> work on this package some more and upload it somewhere? Should I file 
>>>> bugs against the Debian package? Something else?

>>> I would convey your changes to Makoto.  I'm sure he's willing to add
>>> your changes to his development tree and upload them in the next
>>> release.

>> Should this be a wishlist bug?
>
> That would be best, so that your request gets tracked into the system.
> And wishlist bug reports are a handy TODO list for the package
> maintainer.

Ok. I'll do that.

>>> Adding an extra target in the debian/rules to automatically download
>>> and package the version would improve the quality of the PGF package.
>>> Whenever the upstream package releases something new, it's easy for
>>> both the maintainer and regular users to retrieve the latest upstream
>>> package and start working on it.
>>
>> That sounds interesting. Can you point me to some documentation for this?
>
> Have a look at the Debian Policy:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html
> It is totally optional, but I find it very useful, e.g for the "cjk"
> package.  You can easily update the package and get the latest CVS,
> SVN, GIT, etc. version and upload it to Debian.

Thanks for the pointer.
                                                       Regards, Faheem

Reply sent to OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>:
You have taken responsibility. (Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:21:17 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Stefan Krompass <stefan.krompass@cs.tum.edu>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:21:18 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #47 received at 606128-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>
To: 606128-close@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#606128: fixed in pgf 2.10-1
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:17:34 +0000
Source: pgf
Source-Version: 2.10-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
pgf, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

pgf_2.10-1.diff.gz
  to main/p/pgf/pgf_2.10-1.diff.gz
pgf_2.10-1.dsc
  to main/p/pgf/pgf_2.10-1.dsc
pgf_2.10-1_all.deb
  to main/p/pgf/pgf_2.10-1_all.deb
pgf_2.10.orig.tar.gz
  to main/p/pgf/pgf_2.10.orig.tar.gz



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 606128@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org> (supplier of updated pgf package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:02:49 +0900
Source: pgf
Binary: pgf
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.10-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>
Changed-By: OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>
Description: 
 pgf        - TeX Portable Graphic Format
Closes: 464827 572965 606128 618440
Changes: 
 pgf (2.10-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream release (Closes: #606128)
   * Apply patch from Faheem Mitha, thanks. (Closes: #618440).
   * debian/control:
     - Update debhelper dependency. (>= 7.0.0)
     - Update Standards-version.
   * debian/compat: Update compatibility level.
   * debian/rules:
     - Remove executable bit from some source files. (for lintian)
     - Add dh_installtex.
     - Use dh_prep instead of dh_clean -k.
   * Remove pre* and post* scrtipts. (Closes: #464827).
   * debian/pgf.doc-base: Improve the description of doc-base.
   (Closes: #572965).
Checksums-Sha1: 
 338630a0ff20878ad56d3c17fa0f2d79f6c01229 923 pgf_2.10-1.dsc
 8bf424678646793047fa04308595c863a5e00bb7 6683537 pgf_2.10.orig.tar.gz
 04823b5c73c0387f9f747e63f7a878a67a851d0c 10461 pgf_2.10-1.diff.gz
 bdb17b855260a6f19f233a8b2a1224d9f9d90b43 5693660 pgf_2.10-1_all.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 460d1dd18bd3a446df69e34ca409eed79a825369305b7c6b2a54f94f619a3a75 923 pgf_2.10-1.dsc
 642092e6b49df9e33bd901ac7eb7024ff235a29f43d27e78e5827ca3bc03f120 6683537 pgf_2.10.orig.tar.gz
 0b379e80b20efae25a6e68e44bb0bf0974f73bed2d35ecf45b3fee1b1a13fa1c 10461 pgf_2.10-1.diff.gz
 6c0bfc427a19f7f384d39785d28d8999d154b2c262ea803803d16b5e444e188d 5693660 pgf_2.10-1_all.deb
Files: 
 254daa50493b2a5d137b8c1c7b44d68e 923 tex optional pgf_2.10-1.dsc
 c0aba49699c03ab5032eaf710ff0c8ee 6683537 tex optional pgf_2.10.orig.tar.gz
 32d2adba5d4758b8a68d75614e521f51 10461 tex optional pgf_2.10-1.diff.gz
 0a0823f99fecd96c417187d55d019dc9 5693660 tex optional pgf_2.10-1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk2b2RYACgkQ7qLvonfc4IOj7wCgqYR0cpHmfX0/jfMh2ltR2jh1
UqEAoM/b3H3mPZgsisTv367biWQ0tyGG
=FwRi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 14 May 2011 07:35:28 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 17 12:56:05 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.