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

Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Norbert Preining wrote:
> For the language stuff: Here is a problem as some languages packages are
> not *one* single language, but several (arabic, cjk, other). So would it
> be the best solution to have
> 	old:	texlive-langXXXXX
> 	new:	texlive-XXXX-lang
> ?

Arabic is "ar", IIRC. For groups of languages like cjk or indic it might
make sense to split the packages further, or, if that's not feasible,
use e.g. texlive-cjk-lang (but make sure the abbreviation is not ISO-style

> Finally a question concerning the package build from binaries-source:
> texlive-binaries-source         96M
>         texlive-basicbin texlive-binextra texlive-fontbin texlive-htmlxml
>         texlive-metapost texlive-omega texlive-pdfetex texlive-psutils
>         texlive-ttfutils texlive-music texlive-langindic texlive-graphicstools
>         texlive-langcjk
> Renaming some of them in the `obvious' way is in fact misleading: Take
> eg 
> 	old:	texlive-binextra
> and rename it to
> 	new:	texlive-extra-bin
> Then most Debian users would expect a package "texlive-extra" and this
> one would provide only the binaries.
> But in binextra there are not the binaries for some extra package, there
> are just extra binaries including the necessary support files, so
> complete packages.

Probably texlive-extra and texlive-fontutils then? In any case, there's
not much need to search for executables only packages.


Reply to: