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

Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org> wrote:

> > [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.

> The source of teTeX is a *subset* of TeXLive's source, modulo versions.

Then we definitely shouldn't need two copies of it!

> It will serve our users to be able to install, as a Debian package, the
> parts of TeXLive that are not included in teTeX.  

Then why can't TeXLive build binary packages:

- tetex-bin, containing all the usual goodies it provides today
- tetex-extras-double-plus-good, containing the new TeXLive stuff


> It would not do our users any good if we dropped teTeX right now and
> switched everything to TeXLive (especially Debian developers would be
> quite angry about the numerous FTBFS bugs, and "nonresponsive"
> maintainers who are overworked).

They would be justifiably angry if you broke existing tetex
build-dependencies; but if TeXLive is indeed a superset of teTeX, there is
no reason at all why a switch to TeXLive should *require* breaking existing

> I also think that teTeX is a long-term alternative (e.g. for people who
> want a reasonably sized, reasonably recent TeX system without thinking
> much about details, or for buildds).  

Sure sounds to me like this could be provided by careful division of the
TeXLive contents between binary packages?

> Becaues of the internal dependencies of a TeX system, it is not trivial
> to take out the things from TeXLive that are already in teTeX, and only
> package the rest.

Does this also apply to the suggestion of having a core "tetex" package
built from TeXLive sources, plus a shell "texlive" package depending on it?

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: