[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
> (I take in debian-devel and debian-tetex-maint)

For completeness I attach the complete email of Jörg.

Best wishes


Dr. Norbert Preining <preining AT logic DOT at>             Università di Siena
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094      fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
WEST WITTERING (participial vb.)
The uncontrollable twitching which breaks out when you're trying to
get away from the most boring person at a party.
			--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Maintainer(s),

Looking at the texlive packages in NEW I have some comments for you,
leaving alone my big ? why one wants to include basically a ctan mirror
in debian / dupe many things with tetex, instead of simply putting more
man-power/work into tetex if its not modular enough.

Looking at what I know from texlive its intended as a live thingie for
users to play/start with tex? Is there such a huge userbase for this to
include it (hey, its >600MB) into Debian?

Im also not really happy with the current packaging, starting with the too
heavy split of (source) packages.

You have 65 of them right now.
For example there are 19 documentation source packages, all building one
binary. Better merge them into one texlive-source and build the
different binary packages out of that one. You are left with 47 sources.

Similar things can be said for the language packs, merge the *27* to one
and built the binaries out of that. Down to 21 sources. :)
Also I *suggest* to add a - after lang, so it reads lang-FOO, which is
*IMO* easier. (Well, for all packages which dont have the additional -).

To not repeat too much: The same goes for all different source packages
that are splitted into recommended/extra/whatever. I think you can end
up with less than 20 source packages, building up the same functionality
as you do now with 65. Yes, that makes the orig-tarballs bigger, but I
dont think thats so much of a problem here.

Oh, if I go and read the included Licenses.txt i see they have the
following listed:

# The licenses codes as described on
#      http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/licenses.html
# are
# DFSG free licenses:
#      dfsg     Debian Free Software Guidelines
#      artistic        Perl Artistic License
[... and so on]

and a bit down:

allrunes       dfsg
(and more package)

Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.

Note: Feel free to move the discussion to the -devel list if you want.

bye Joerg


If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
override file requires editing, reply to this email.

--- End Message ---

Reply to: