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

Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Le mardi 29 novembre 2005 à 22:16 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> Please read the thread following the ITP. If you want teTeX, install it.
> There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
> software. 

When did I ask you to make one single binary package?

> The granularity delivered by texlive is generally considered an
> advantage, but for those in search for a smaller solution with only few
> packages, there is tetex.

And there's a duplication of most TeX components. I hope there is some
plan to merge those packages some day in the future.

> > I know you're going to tell me there will be metapackages, and that I
> No, there won't be. There is already texlive-latex-recommended and/or
> texlive-latex-base. If you apt-get/aptitude install this, you have a
> working system.

Aren't these metapackages?
Anyway, you haven't even read what I've written. *sigh*

How can users know which package to install to get a working TeX system?
With tetex, everything is simple. Now with two tex package sets, one of
them extremely granular, how can a user not aware about texlive, tetex
and Debian internals know whether he has to install tetex-base,
texlive-latex-base or texlive-foobar-stuff ? Worse, how can he know what
Debian package to install when a .sty is missing? Will it be in
texlive-math-extra, texlive-latex-recommended or texlive-formats-extra?
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: