Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> How would the layout go for documentation packages. Ok, for a
> documentation in language xxxx I take the XX code and generate
> old: texlive-documentation-xxxxx
> new: texlive-XX-doc
> But what to do with the texlive-documentation-base, should it become
> old: texlive-documenatation-base
> new: texlive-base-doc
> ?
I would say, yes, texlive-base-doc, because it is the doc package for
texlive-base (or probably for the arch: all and arch: any packages with
base in their name). It is not so much the basis of all texlive
documentation.
> 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
> ?
Here, I would take descriptive names - you wouldn't want to change the
package name if cjk starts supporting an additional language. But as
for arabic, isn't that *one* language? I'm not familiar with language
vs. country codes, but I found a list of ISO 639 2- and 3-letter
lanugage codes, where 'AR' or 'ara' stands for arabic. And the
two-letter list is missing some languages with TeX support, e.g. Sorbian
(wen).
> Otherwise, according to your comments, I would suggest
> texlive-base-bin
> texlive-extra-bin
> texlive-font-bin
Why not texlive-bin-* in this case, if it fits better to the content?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: