Re: TeTeX 3 in experimental
Søren Christensen <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Frank Küster (one of the main tetex developers for Debian) has put
>> backported versions of the tetex 3 packages for sarge. See:
> How does this integrate with the rest of the debian-sarge system?
As good and as problematic as every collection of backports. The
security problems are already described on that page. Furthermore, some
packages from sarge cannot be used with teTeX-3.0, and I have included
backports of (some of) these packages in the repository. I won't have
time to follow the development of all of them, instead I just took the
first version in sid that works with teTeX-3.0, and do not plan to
update them regularly (only if there is a security issue).
The only difference to "usual" backports is that they are provided by
the maintainer of the package in sid, and that there is infrastructure
in the source package itself to switch from sid as target distribution
to a sarge backport.
> Does everything (both the official debian-TeX and this backport) comply
> with the official TeX Document Structure?
Both are identical except for the library dependencies, and both follow
the rather new TeX Directory Structure version 1.1 (while the packages
in sarge follow version 1.0).
> And will they work together
> seamlessly (I recall that I once switched from the TeX-system, that was
> suppplied with Suse or Mandrake to the official TeX-Live dist, and the
> Linux-system kept complaining, that there was no TeX-system available)
That is not surprising, since you TeX-live does not provide the tetex
rpm's that other SuSE packages depend on. The same would happen with
texlive on Debian, but since the backports do provide the same packages,
there is no problem.
But it seems to me that these questions show that you should rather
learn more about what backports are and what benefits and disadvantages
they bring. I can't see why you need to contact debian-tetex-maint for
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich