Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> What do you thing about this scheme:
> (source package with size of the .orig.tar.gz, plus included binary
> packages)
> Would this be an acceptable solution for you?
>
[...]
> texlive-documentation-source 57M
> texlive-documentation-base
> texlive-documentation-bulgarian
[...]
> texlive-languages-source 37M
[...]
>
> texlive-base-source 78M
> texlive-basic
[...]
>
> texlive-extra-source 172M
> texlive-bibtexextra
Whether this is a good idea depends on a decision that, IIRC, we have
not yet talked about: Will you only provide packages of the released
version, or also of (usable) development versions? In the latter case,
I think it would be a good idea to keep documentation sources and TeX
input file sources together. Otherwise you'd have to rebuilt all
packages from texlive-documentation-source and texlive-languages-source
just because one language package was updated on CTAN and mirrored in
TeXLive.
And generally I wonder: Don't you generate most of the documentation
from dtx files, and many input files from the same dtx files? Then why
not build most documentation packages from the same source as the TeX
input files? Or are the input files already included in the TeXlive
repository in their extract version?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: