You are not logged in.
The subject doesn't capture the full issue. I am not merely trying to get an updated version of csquotes. Here's the full story:
I have created a PKGBUILD for the LaTeX package biblatex-chicago-notes-df which obviously uses the biblatex package. This is fine because biblatex is in AUR. However, biblatex-chicago-notes-df has an optional dependency on a newer version of csquotes than the one included in texlive-latexextra (if you want to use csquotes alongside biblatex-chicago-notes-df, the official version will be rejected, so a newer version is needed if a person wants to use it). I have made a PKGBUILD for that, as well, and it works just fine. The problem is that I want to be able to share my PKGBUILD for biblatex-chicago-notes-df via AUR, but I would need to upload my updated csquotes PKGBUILD there, as well. That doesn't seem ideal since csquotes is technically already included in TeXLive; that version is just too old for use with this particular package. What should I do? Should I go ahead and upload both packages to AUR or should I file a bug report to ask for csquotes to be updated in texlive-latexextra?
Last edited by g4c (2009-01-22 20:36:49)
Offline
Well you might want to get an opinion on this from firmicus or stefan, but I'd say go ahead and upload both, with a comment on csquotes package explaining the situation. When new csquotes will appear in texlive-latexextra, update the pkgbuilds and request that the csquotes package to be removed.
texlive-latexextra is a huge beast, and I don't think it makes sense to request an update of (and update) it just because one package inside is not new enough.
Offline
texlive-latexextra just got updated today. Did you check against this one?
Offline
Good timing. The updated texlive-latexextra indeed includes the newer csquotes. Problem solved. :-) Thanks for the help. I'll go ahead and upload just the one package then.
Offline
csquotes has again been updated (4.4a 2009/07/04; and new versions of biblatex seem to depend on the current version). In general/in the future, should we just mark tl-le (texlive-latexextra) as Out-of-date or would that be too unspecific? As can be seen on debian's tl-le bugtracker, there are frequent updates of single packages in tl-le. (Which makes both tagging tl-le as obsolete *and* temporarily hosting the newer packages on AUR somewhat unattractive, doesn't it?) Maybe a routine update every three or four months would be a better solution?
Last edited by awagner (2009-07-24 09:37:25)
Offline