Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Norbert Preining wrote:
> texlive-binaries-source 96M
> texlive-basicbin texlive-base-bin
> texlive-binextra texlive-extrautils
I'd suggest texline-extra-utils here, because (at least to me) "extra"
and "utils" put together are hard to read. Possibly because "au"
generally (always, maybe even) goes together as one sound in English.
In general, hyphenated is far easier to read than concatenated, so I
don't see a problem with prefering it. Just-try-reading-this-sentence
> texlive-langindic texlive-lang-indic
Shouldn't this go with languages, below?
> texlive-graphicstools texlive-graphicstools
A hyphen would really be appreciated here, too. Probably because of "st"
generally being one sound in English. Not to mention "graphic stools"
has the same spelling.
> texlive-langcjk texlive-lang-cjk
> texlive-documentation-base texlive-base-doc
> texlive-documentation-bulgarian texlive-bg-doc
> texlive-documentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc
> texlive-documentation-dutch texlive-nl-doc
I'm going to agree with the other poster: These should all be
texlive-doc-FOO instead of texlive-FOO-doc (including the base one).
It'll make them all sort nicely in aptitude, and also makes them be
found when the user searches (in aptitude) for texlive-doc.
> texlive-languages-source 37M
> Reasoning: We use names instead of codes as several of these packages include
> support for different languages/variants (greek: various versions of greek
> with different iso codes, ...).
This makes them oddly different than the documentation packages. Could
you maybe use ISO codes, either two or three letter, where possible? Its
fairly clear that -lang-african can't do that, but almost all of them can.