Re: The Future of Debian's TeX packages
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 Dirk.Eddelbuettel@qed.econ.queensu.ca wrote:
>
> Christian> a) do we stick to our own Debian-TeX distribution
> Christian> b) should we base our TeX packages on an existing TeX distribution
>
>I am in favour of a), even though it might mean more work.
Although I didn't do any work on TeX for a long time let me speak up too.
I'd second Dirk and vote for a) but
Karl Berry himself says, those that want to compile there own TeX
(as we surely do) should get the teTeX sources because they are more up
to date than the original web2c sources, as long as web2c 7.0 is not
released.
We should base the core binaries (i.e. tex, mf, bibtex,
font-utilities like gftopk et al, xdvi and dvips ) on these sources.
Portability of documents is not that much a TeX distribution
issue. Switching to an external distribution won't buy us much in this
respect. It mostly depends on how many macro-packages and fonts are
provided.
I suppose it is more work to repackage the complete teTeX distribution to
debian standards that to have a close look at it, follow the overall design
ideas and make our own packages following these guidelines. This is
probably the best way to profite from the work Thomas Esser had already put
in it.
Nils
--
\ / | Nils Rennebarth
--* WINDOWS 42 *-- | Schillerstr. 61
/ \ | 37083 Göttingen
| ++49-551-71626
Micro$oft's final answer | http://www.nus.de/~nils
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: