Re: The Splitting of teTeX
From: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The Splitting of teTeX
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:26:03 -0700
> I like the idea of splitting things up more than they are, but perhaps
> not quite the way Thomas is proposing.
I also like to split teTeX packages more than the present
ones. But I do not check the proposal thoroughly yet so
give only few point.
> * International Language Support
>
> I pretty much only ever use English (I may use the occasional Spanish,
> German, or French word, phrase, or quote, but I would never create a
> complete document in one of those languages), and would rather save
> the disk space needed for that support. (Especially if I could
> trivially install and uninstall it if I needed it.) So splitting some
> of the non-English language support off makes sense from my
> perspective (based on the information you sent, that would also make
> czech, greek, polish, and cyrillic (Russian & other langauges, too?)
> similar to the french package (but still free, unlike french, I
> guess?)). Babel is part of LaTeX's required directory, so it would be
> available no matter what.
By a different reason I agree this. We Japanese have used ptex/platex
command ('p' means 'publishing', that is, TeX which produces
output suitable even for publishing books etc.) and this contradicts
with platex commands of Polish TeX.
So it is very nice if we can install teTeX packages without Polish
TeX.
> * ConTeXt and Omega
>
> I also can't see myself ever using things like ConTeXt or Omega, so
> splitting those off is a good thing.
I do not know ConTeXt. Where can I find information on this?
> * LaTeX
>
> I really like having the LaTeX packages split out -- doing so means
> that Debian could update the LaTeX code separately from the rest of
> teTeX, so that it would be much easier to keep your LaTeX distribution
> up-to-date. I'm not sure where the LaTeX's required directory has
> gone in this scheme -- I don't see it listed under latex-base, where I
> would expect it to be -- but I would think that required should
> definitely be part of latex-base. AMS-LaTeX is part of required now,
> too; while I could make a case for packaging it separately, it's
> easier (and more correct) to just include it in latex-base. Doing so
> would mean that if a new version of AMS-LaTeX packages or classes
> comes out, a new version of latex-base would have to be made but
> that's probably not as bad as it seems.
I strongly hope this too. I like the latest LaTeX and/or AMS-LaTeX.
In fact, I have maintained these for Debian JP but it is much nice
if it is distributed as Debian Packages.
Best Regards, 2000.6.13
--
Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Reply to: