Re: The Splitting of teTeX
Julian Gilbey writes ("Re: The Splitting of teTeX"):
>On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 11:02:30AM +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
>> > I don't think it's worth the effort. The -src package only exists to
>> > satisfy the requirements of some licenses, and if we have newer LaTeX
>> > packages, we would have the LaTeX sources in the source package
>> > there. It's a shame that there are no "source only" packages! If
>> > people want source packages, they can use "apt-get source ...".
>>
>> Please remember, that tetex-src is NOT identical with the sources of
>> tetex-{base,extra}. In tetex-{base,extra} are the docstripped versions
>> of the files in tetex-src which do not suffice for the copyright.
>
>Absolutely! tetex-src is a fairly pointless package to have available
>in .deb form. A source package for it, or even just a .tar.gz or
>.tar.bz2 version would be more than adequate. Since it is only used
>upstream to generate tetex-{base,extra}, it really is like a source
>package. As I said, it only exists because of certain licensing
>requirements. So the effort needed to split it would be wasted.
In this case, I must disagree somewhat. Having had personal
discussion with many of the authors, the reason they wanted to require
.dtx distribution along with the .sty is because they wanted to ensure
that end users have access to it for documentation and example
reasons.
It's *not* only a source package---the author *wanted* to have that
.dtx in the hands of the end-user, installed on the systems.
Remember, "only exists because of certain licensing requirements" is
still important. If you don't like their terms, stop distributing
their software.
--
Richard W Kaszeta PhD. Candidate and Sysadmin
bofh@me.umn.edu University of MN, ME Dept
http://www.menet.umn.edu/~kaszeta
Reply to: