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

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

> 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

> 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: