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

Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

[Frank Küster]
> > Why do we need two packages containing the "latex" command, for example?
> Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?

That's not equivalent.  An equivalent question would be more like "why
do we need N packages all containing the source code for exim and
building a binary called /usr/sbin/exim?"  What I mean is, AFAICT, if
you get past the packaging, tetex and texlive are the *same* source
code and the *same* data - not just two different implementations of a
similar interface.

So I would dearly hope that eventually tetex would evolve into little
more than a set of metapackages that suck in stuff from texlive.  Or do
the existing tetex packages actually provide anything that could not be
provided that way?  (Yes, I realise 'tetex' would be a misnomer at that

I'm in favor of texlive being included in debian unstable (assuming
license issues can be worked out), but I am not particularly in favor
of having texlive and tetex coexist indefinitely.  tetex is heavy
enough that it should have to justify its continued existence (I mean
as more than just a way to "get all useful bits of TeX by listing just
one package dependency") if texlive provides the same thing.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: