Bug#190721: splitting of texdoctk is hosed

[Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>]

From: Josh Buhl <uzs33d@uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Bug#190721: splitting of texdoctk is hosed
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:30:59 +0200

> Well, I'm going to wait to see what the developers say. If I close 
> 190721, then 189341 will spend the rest of eternity on the wish list. If 
> the developers close it, at least I'll know that they've considered my 
> objection and it's out of my hands, having done what I can.

Hmm, I should say something, then?

> I still think putting a bug which breaks a package on the wish list is a 
> little far fetched.

As I said before, the similar problems remain unless
we merge tetex-base and tetex-extra into only one big
tetex-base;

From: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Subject: Bug#189341: tetex-bin: texdoctk not packaged correctly
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:48:45 +0900 (JST)

> As long as we separated texmf tree into tetex-base and
> tetex-extra, this is inevitable.  Theoretically, we should
> provide tetex-base only which included both the current 
> tetex-base and tetex-extra but there is a strong desire
> of users not to provide a large tetex-base.

Not only texdoctk, but amstex, metapost, eurosym, txfonts,
pxfonts etc. depend on tetex-extra at present.

If we move these stuffs to tetex-base, then at last every
stuffs in tetex-extra would be in tetex-base.

So the essential problem is how to split texmf tree, and 
there is no absolute solution which will satisfys all users,
IMHO.

Have you any good design?

Thanks,				2003-4-28(Mon)

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.